Labour’s digital ID by the backdoor will be a honey pot for hackers
Labour’s attempt to usher in digital IDs via the backdoor is in urgent need of scrutiny, writes Jasleen Chaggar
You may feel a sense of deja vu at the debate over IDs. That campaign – No2ID – was fought and won in the early 2000s, but it may be set to reignite with calls from MPs for the government to launch a digital ID, the launch of the new gov.uk wallet and the government continuing to steam ahead with its sprawling Data (Use and Access) Bill this week.
The data bill is building the framework for a digital ID ecosystem for the private sector at the same time the government is pushing its own digital wallet for public services. The idea is to make the government more efficient by allowing members of the public to access their data in one place.
With more of us spending more of our lives online, the plans may seem common sense at first glance. But what is inclusive for some is not inclusive for all. There are many people in the UK who cannot or do not want to use digital methods to identify themselves. The digital divide is already causing issues for many people who are trying to use government services: according to the National Audit Office, only about 20 per cent of Universal Credit applicants can use online identity verification methods.
The existence of digital poverty also means that not everyone can afford or has the skills to get online. Ofcom notes that seven per cent of British households do not have internet access, and this figure rises to almost 20 per cent for low-income households and those over 65. Digital inclusion means recognising the reality that it will never be possible to get everyone online. However, the bill does not include a right to a non-digital ID.
What does digital ID mean for personal privacy?
Before pressing ahead with embedding digital ID ecosystems, MPs also need to consider what a centralised digital ID scheme for public services would mean for privacy and security. A centralised repository of personal information about individuals – which could include every time they have been to see their GP, their GCSE grades, bank statements submitted to the department of work and pensions and tax returns – would be a honeypot for hackers and foreign adversaries who already have a track record of trying to breach government databases.
The planned digital wallet will be able to host government documents including those used “to prove things such as your age, identity or eligibility for services”. While the government has insisted that the government wallet would be voluntary there is no legal guarantee or safeguard protecting us from one day living in a world of a mandatory digital identification scheme.
In light of these plans, Steff Aquarone MP has introduced an amendment to the bill that would introduce a right to use non-digital ID when interacting with both private and public services. Unfortunately, not a single member of the Labour Party is supporting the amendment.
Those who advocate for digital IDs have a well-intentioned belief that the government will be more efficient if we embrace a centralised digital approach to government identity and data. But digital ID schemes are not a panacea to government efficiency issues. There are liberal democracies such as Canada and Denmark that manage to offer public services without a nation-wide digital ID programme.
Labour did not campaign on launching a digital ID scheme, but it is paving the way to introduce one via the back door. The government should use the Bill as an opportunity to make sure that people always have a choice of how to identify themselves, ensuring that a digital ID scheme is never a requirement.
Jasleen Chaggar is legal and policy officer at Big Brother Watch