As I write this, Keir Starmer is poised to stand up in the Labour Conference and propose the introduction of compulsory digital ID cards by 2029, while the petition opposing that policy has shot past two million signatures in record time.
The Guardian tells us that the petition argues that “no one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system”, which it describes as a “step towards mass surveillance and digital control”.
They add that civil liberties groups have raised concerns over the proposals, with Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, warning the system would “make Britain less free” and create “a domestic mass surveillance infrastructure that will likely sprawl from citizenship to benefits, tax, health, possibly even internet data and more”.
She added: “Incredibly sensitive information about each and every one of us would be hoarded by the state and vulnerable to cyber-attacks.”
The Liberal Democrats have also come out against the proposal with Ed Davey vowing that his party will 'fight against it tooth and nail - just as we successfully did against Tony Blair’s ID card'.
A motion going to both the Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrat conferences asserts that the cornerstone of a liberal society is that law-abiding citizens should be free to live their lives without unnecessary control or interference from the state. These freedoms are fundamental rights, not privileges to be constrained or granted at the government’s discretion.
It adds that access to public services is a basic right of living in the United Kingdom, not a conditional entitlement subject to government control. Unlike many other countries, including our European neighbours, the UK lacks a written constitution to enshrine rights and protect citizens from excessive state intrusion.
A digital identity system would disproportionately disadvantage older people, disabled residents, and those on low incomes, who are most affected by digital exclusion, while the Government’s repeated failures to safeguard sensitive data demonstrates why citizens should not be compelled to entrust further personal information to the state.
Sign the petition here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.
Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.
I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.
Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.
The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.