… So said the protagonist in the legendary and increasingly prognosticative 1960s TV show ‘The Prisoner’.
But it’s looking as if our world is fast-become an open prison, much like the one Number Six (that was the ‘name’ the character was given) inhabited with our every move being surveilled and recorded.
There’s been talk of implementing a digital ID system for some time and in the past it was dismissed as being too tyrannical. But, while we’ve been lapping up the distractions they’ve been throwing our way, the government have been striving to get this new system in place.
If you don’t want Digital ID – and who does? – you still have a chance to make your feelings known. But you need to send an email TODAY as the deadline is tomorrow.
The deadline for objections to government plans to implement a digital ID system in the UK is looming. If you’ve not sent your email yet, you still have today to do it as the deadline is tomorrow – March 1st 2023.
A journalist friend of mine – Andy Smith (who broadcasts an independent radio show called Gloves On – here he is, interviewing me a few months back: https://sites.libsyn.com/
“I am completely opposed to the government’s plans for single sign-on and data sharing across departments and organisations as it is leading to mission creep towards establishing a new Digital ID.
This is understood to be required as preparation for the introduction of the new Central Bank Digital Currency (coupon) objectives with the ultimate goal of monitoring everyone’s financial transactions with possible restrictions and by withdrawing physical cash, thereby removing the last tiny bit of privacy left from the overextending surveillance by the State.
The minister in the consultation states: ‘This policy initiative is owned by DCMS and will enable citizens to prove things about themselves in a secure and trusted way to access commercial products and services online’.
Also it allows commercial organisations to have access to potentially all details of an individual’s life as the scope inevitable extends breaching further into individual’s privacy.
Public and private must not be linked.
This consultation is likely to be nothing more than an impression of seeking the people’s views when the decision has been taken and the architecture already in design.
The Government Digital Service Chief Executive Officer Tom Read stated on 20th December 2022: ‘Overall, we have had a successful 18 months, and some of our achievements have gone far beyond what I thought possible. On product, we started with an ambition to take the learnings from GOV.UK Verify and build a new digital identity and single sign-on service for all of government – something we are now calling GOV.UK One Login’. https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2022/
On the 27th May 2010, the Coalition stated: ‘The Identity Documents Bill is the first piece of legislation introduced to Parliament by the new government.
Home Secretary Theresa May said: ‘This bill is a first step of many that this government is taking to reduce the control of the state over decent, law-abiding people, and to hand power back to them. With swift parliamentary approval, we aim to consign identity cards and the intrusive ID card scheme to history within 100 days.’
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: ‘The wasteful, bureaucratic and intrusive ID card scheme represents everything that has been wrong with government in recent years. By taking swift action to scrap it, we are making it clear that this government won’t sacrifice people’s liberty for the sake of ministers’ pet projects. Cancelling the scheme and abolishing the National Identity Register is a major step in dismantling the surveillance state – but ID cards are just the tip of the iceberg. Today marks the start of a series of radical reforms to restore hard-won British freedoms.’ https://www.gov.uk/
The Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart, in this consultation, states: ‘….the government is committed to realising the benefits of digital identity technologies without creating ID cards’.
The Government Digital Service Chief Executive Officer Tom Read stated the development work of GOV.UK One Login’ is to ‘build a new digital identity’ AND ‘single sign-on service for all of government’.
This is the creation of Digital ID ‘without creating ID cards’
In terms of identifying an individual, the Disclosure and Barring Service already has the capability to establish identity as does the Passport Office, there is no need to create ‘a new digital identity.’
The proposal allows for all 28+ entities in Schedule 4 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 including local government, police, fire and schools to share data along with the four new ones proposed being the Cabinet Office, Department for Transport, Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Disclosure and Barring Service.
The consultation states Health and Social Care are not currently included within the DEA Act 2017 and that as part of the plans for the Digital Government (Disclosure of Information)(Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023: ‘At this time the service will not be aimed at children under the age of 13’.
Inevitably, mission creep will bring all those and others within the new regulations.
The known use by ministers of ‘no plans’ now at the time of saying the words publicly does not stop plans being decided five minutes later in private.
The intention of these changes is to soft sell them as being to ‘improve their well-being’ when the likely intention is to get the ground works in place and then add to them.
A good example is the Covid jab roll out which was initially pushed by ministers as only intended for the over-70s for the UK to get back to normal and then it was progressively extended lower to school age.
Government and ministers cannot be trusted about any assurance regarding these proposals as the goal posts will undoubtedly be moved to enable the already agreed bigger plan.
This Digital ID plan cannot be seen in isolation as something the UK thinks is a good idea when a simple search on the internet reveals the UK is party to an 8 nation working group on the same issue.
The Digital Identity Working Group was reported in early 2022: ‘A common set of definitions and universal taxonomy for digital identity is critical to enable mutual recognition of digital identities and interoperability of digital identity systems… This set of common definitions will evolve as trust frameworks and digital identities are further developed’.
Established in 2020, DIWG comprises Australia, Canada, Finland, Israel, New Zealand, Singapore, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and is chaired by Australia’s Digital Transformation Agency.
The group was initially formed to allow its members to “share experiences and opportunities for the use of digital identity initiatives, with a focus on the response to and recovery from the impacts of COVID-19 on governments and people” https://www.
This consultation states that: ‘The Digital Identity Call for Evidence in 2020 demonstrated the UK public’s strong desire for the government to use digital identities to enable citizens to access products and services with ease….’
That is biased PR spin.
It states: ‘In your responses to last year’s digital identity Call for Evidence, you told us you wanted the government to take a lead role in developing the UK’s digital identity economy. You wanted to see us create a clear framework that enables businesses to innovate’.
‘We will also develop the next generation of digital identity use in government, and promote a pragmatic approach to international digital identity standards.
The foundation is strong. There is much that both the government and the private sector can continue to build upon to create trust in digital identities. We will work with individual users and business stakeholders, across departmental boundaries and with our international partners’.
It goes on to state the level of responses to the Call for Evidence: ‘The Call for Evidence received 148 responses. A small number were out of scope, but the list of organisations providing in scope submissions can be found in Annex B. 20 submissions were from individuals. Technology, professional services and finance sectors were most represented in the submissions.
The ‘foundation’ is NOT ‘strong’.
Response to the Call for Evidence at 148 was tiny from the UK population of 60 million people.
Of the responses, there is no sight of any positive or negative responses, only Government analysis is shown which is clearly biased in favour of what had already been decided prior to the ‘Call for Evidence’.
For there to be any faith in this consultation, the public must be able to see both sides of the debate presented to the Government and not a summary of Government spin supporting its own proposal.
As stated at the top of this email I remain firmly opposed to what is a backdoor introduction of Digital ID and data sharing which is an extension of surveillance and restricting of private freedoms and privacy.
You may publish this as part of the consultation.
Thank you.”
Add your name, put ‘Response to the consultation on the data sharing for identity verification services’ in the subject box. send the email to: dea-data-sharing@digital.
You’re welcome!
Jacqui Deevoy has been a full time freelance journalist for more than three decades. Over the last few years, she’s lost faith in the MSM and now prefers to work for news outlets that deal in truth, not lies.
In 2021, she launched a personal investigation into euthanasia in the NHS and this resulted in her producing the shocking documentary ‘A Good Death?’ She is currently crowdfunding for a second film – ‘Playing God’ – due for release soon.
She produces and presents the UNN Friday night show – a sometimes serious but often irreverent chat-fest with an array of fascinating guests talking on a wide range of subjects. She’s also one of UNN’s lead reporters.
Follow Jacqui on Twitter @JacquiDeevoy1
