So, I want to contribute to the public consultation about the necessity of digital identities as presented by the UK government.
Can we all squeeze our ridge brains and come up with arguments against the necessity of digital identities please?
It is given that the government(s) as a given has covered the areas of privacy/data protection, fraud, inclusivity of services and security therefore more (or stronger on the previous ones) arguments are required.
Please let's all come together to make a solid argument against the need of digital identities.
Here's the porposal if interested to read the arguments for https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework/the-uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework
We have until 12pm on Thursday 11 March 2021
I think we've seen borne out that "digital" may as well be equated with "eternally fluid", and therefore detrimental to the individual human being who will be subject to the whims of whatever governmental/corporate entities would like to fling at them (the relative ease and universality of update once a change is approved deserves mention here) in order to keep the identity "in place/turned on/in good standing".
In controlling the masses via algorithm, which is what I assume the concept of "digital identity" equates to, we throw out human context and move full-on into whatever biases are programmed into the sea of algorithms that will be doing the judging, categorizing, and attribution of permissions allotted to individual people. Those biases, while baked in, will remain largely invisible to the authorities acting on said permissions and with heavy reliance on the standing of said digital identity, you run the risk of shutting a number of people out of services and/or society as it is currently known.
Centralization of power has never worked out well for individual citizens, and a digital identity would see a power shift like no other. This centralization amplifies the negative impact of a corrupt state or racketeering practices enacted by companies to retain their profits. The enacting of a digital identity, under the most charitable light, assumes that governments, authorities, business, and power act benevolently toward individual people most of or all of the time. In practice, I think we have seen this is decidedly not the case.
It also bears mentioning that the emergence of the "public-private partnerships" proposed as the means of combatting fraud and cyber-crime have put a legitimate face on some of the most blatant corruption we have seen in our time. The proposal mentions regulation and controls upon such -- what will we have given up when the breakdown of said 'regulation and controls' inevitably takes place?
UK has privacy and consent laws GDPR General Data Protections.
One of the items is that a company is expected to document a Valid Consent.
That implies there is a choice.
That implies there needs to be some mechanism to 'Opt Out'.
What this describes seems to have no possible means of anyone 'Opting Out'.
Another point, see every possible breach or hack of data and GDPR lawsuit that has occurred ever.
If there is no mechanism that would make it impossible for a breach, it will occur.
(Aside from the fact that this solves no problem that anyone actually has today.)
Historical lens: A grand-mother warns about National ID Cards @5:30 -> and much more
I think we both agree but these are not arguments. They give examples where Digital ID will help (trying to sell).
Can we counteract these or give other examples where Digital Id will be detrimental?
I do not see this thread as a response to me but as a "live document" to be leveraged in different countries when the need arises. Hopefully community will contribute.
I do not think I got my point across. I fully understand and agree with your point but...
They do not dispute the use of ID's.
They are asking (pretending to) about a public's perspective.
I know they do not give a shit but...
It is better to respond rather than not...
So I am looking for arguments to counteract their arguments, not the principle which is (unfortunately) accepted as is.
I am asking for your help as I cannot think of any arguments. rather than give up i reached out to my best buddies; YOU.
If the entire community in conspiracies.win (so many spend so much time here arguing)** cannot come up with some solid arguments it means that we are (myself included) incompetent **to counteract any of their measures and our demise simply a matter of time.
I only have a landline
All of WW2 is a pretty good argument against "Papers Please !"
But they will say that public health supersedes that !
There is always a bullshit excuse.
The science doesn't support:
lockdowns
forced vaccinations as a solution to anything
the existence of SARSCOV2 in humans
PCR tests as being anywhere near "accurate"