Your reply imagines a future in which id is simultaneously used for more things than in any country, and less secure than existing technology (it’s not possible for example to clone digital id in current implementations, just like you can’t clone a bank card off a contactless transaction)
So I don’t think this is a case of me being optimistic.
And if you’re pessimistic about all of this then that’s not unreasonable, but framing it as absolute opposition is unreasonable. The objections you raised are for the most part entirely surmountable by a sensible implementation. Why not change your opposition to “we shouldn’t have this until a concrete proposal is put forward which satisfied x y and z?”
Yes, I know what you mean, but this is not happening in isolation. This is happening in context with a bunch of other stuff - some of it is badly thought out Tory policies which are being enacted by the current government, and some of it is newly invented policies from the current government.
So if we think about it combined with their current crackdown on peace and environmental protest (potentially on its way to being outlawed entirely), enforced ID to access websites and (imminently) requirement to give the government access to your bank account to receive any benefits (including, of course, child benefit and disability benefits)… and suggestions about replacing all train tickets with GPS tracking your ID and location… these could all add up very quickly into a scenario as described. If they can explain how these definitely won’t happen, maybe we’re fine?
Also, agreed on the ‘sensible implementation/concrete proposals’ bit, but that’s exactly what they’re not doing, and there’s no suggestion that that’s been done in the past with anything recently, and no suggestion it will be done for this.
Are they consulting the EFF and similar? Are they consulting University Professors who are experts in their fields? Or are they consulting right-wing American surveillance companies?
There’s no sensible assessment of how this would work, with thought, research, expert opinions etc - like the “ID for websites” thing - it was just pushed through by people who didn’t understand how it would work.
I think this diagram explains it a bit clearer:
Basically, the most likely outcome is sadly that it will be shoddily implemented by morons and criminals, to make some right-wing twats more rich and powerful.
What has told you in the past… 20 years? That this government, or the previous government, is capable of doing anything that isnt just 100% to fuck us all over?
The other guy is right, no one asked for this. We did ask to drop the “child” safety act, and were ignored or worse, called paedos.
Here, Ill play your game. “We shouldnt have this until we have a government that works for the people, and not to service and fill the pockets of the already rich and abusive. And even then, it should be an option. Not a demand.”
This is a continuation of the push, along with accessing our private messages, to control and monitor us all 24/7. Starmer is a right wing authoritarian masquerading as a left wing leader. And the end of the road he leads us down, will be one were we have no privacy. We wont even be allowed to protest this shit.
Your reply imagines a future in which id is simultaneously used for more things than in any country, and less secure than existing technology (it’s not possible for example to clone digital id in current implementations, just like you can’t clone a bank card off a contactless transaction)
So I don’t think this is a case of me being optimistic.
And if you’re pessimistic about all of this then that’s not unreasonable, but framing it as absolute opposition is unreasonable. The objections you raised are for the most part entirely surmountable by a sensible implementation. Why not change your opposition to “we shouldn’t have this until a concrete proposal is put forward which satisfied x y and z?”
Yes, I know what you mean, but this is not happening in isolation. This is happening in context with a bunch of other stuff - some of it is badly thought out Tory policies which are being enacted by the current government, and some of it is newly invented policies from the current government.
So if we think about it combined with their current crackdown on peace and environmental protest (potentially on its way to being outlawed entirely), enforced ID to access websites and (imminently) requirement to give the government access to your bank account to receive any benefits (including, of course, child benefit and disability benefits)… and suggestions about replacing all train tickets with GPS tracking your ID and location… these could all add up very quickly into a scenario as described. If they can explain how these definitely won’t happen, maybe we’re fine?
Also, agreed on the ‘sensible implementation/concrete proposals’ bit, but that’s exactly what they’re not doing, and there’s no suggestion that that’s been done in the past with anything recently, and no suggestion it will be done for this.
Are they consulting the EFF and similar? Are they consulting University Professors who are experts in their fields? Or are they consulting right-wing American surveillance companies?
There’s no sensible assessment of how this would work, with thought, research, expert opinions etc - like the “ID for websites” thing - it was just pushed through by people who didn’t understand how it would work.
I think this diagram explains it a bit clearer:
Basically, the most likely outcome is sadly that it will be shoddily implemented by morons and criminals, to make some right-wing twats more rich and powerful.
Truthfully, I hope I am over-reacting.
What has told you in the past… 20 years? That this government, or the previous government, is capable of doing anything that isnt just 100% to fuck us all over?
The other guy is right, no one asked for this. We did ask to drop the “child” safety act, and were ignored or worse, called paedos.
Here, Ill play your game. “We shouldnt have this until we have a government that works for the people, and not to service and fill the pockets of the already rich and abusive. And even then, it should be an option. Not a demand.”
This is a continuation of the push, along with accessing our private messages, to control and monitor us all 24/7. Starmer is a right wing authoritarian masquerading as a left wing leader. And the end of the road he leads us down, will be one were we have no privacy. We wont even be allowed to protest this shit.