Norris Da Boss Windross

An Open Letter to Keir Starmer and his Marxist Government. Dear Mr.Starmer, I am writing in response to the Government’s consultation on the proposed UK Digital Identity system. Having read the full consultation document in detail, I would like to begin by congratulating you on what is surely one of the most impressive exercises in political reassurance ever produced: a 91-page document repeatedly explaining that a system which looks, behaves, and functions like a national digital identity infrastructure is definitely not a national digital identity infrastructure. Naturally, I was particularly comforted to learn that the system will be entirely voluntary. This is a powerful commitment to personal freedom. It is therefore reassuring to understand that while citizens will remain free not to use the digital ID, they may simply find themselves unable to complete right-to-work checks, prove their age, access services, or interact with organisations that adopt the system as the default form of identity verification. In other words, it will be voluntary in the same sense that umbrellas are voluntary during a rainstorm. The consultation also describes a vision of “joined-up public services,” supported by what appears to be a universal identifier capable of linking records across multiple government departments. I must commend the ambition here. For decades the British state has been forced to endure the inefficiency of citizens existing in separate administrative systems. Finally, technology will allow a citizen’s interactions with employment checks, benefits, education, and other services to be smoothly connected. I can only assume this will be done with the lightest possible touch, given the Government’s entirely understandable desire to know everything about everyone only in the most privacy-respecting way imaginable. Equally reassuring is the promise of “selective disclosure.” I understand this to mean that when I prove something simple, such as my age, the receiving party will only see the minimum information required. Meanwhile, the system operating behind the scenes may still confirm my identity and record that the check took place. I am sure this information will be handled with the utmost restraint and never used to build broader profiles of citizens’ lives, habits, or movements. Governments are, after all, well known for resisting the temptation to analyse data once it has been collected. Security, too, appears to be robust. The proposal sensibly places a citizen’s core identity credentials on a device that is famous for its stability and careful handling: the modern smartphone. The same device that people regularly lose, break, leave in taxis, or expose to malware will now hold the keys to their legal identity. Should anything go wrong, it is comforting to know the state retains the power to revoke or suspend a digital identity if fraud is suspected. This elegant feature ensures that, if a mistake occurs, a citizen’s ability to prove who they are and access services can be paused instantly, a level of efficiency rarely seen in government systems. The consultation also acknowledges that around one in ten adults lack in-date photo identification and that a significant portion of the population struggles with digital services. Fortunately, this challenge will apparently be addressed through an “inclusion programme.” While the details are understandably still being developed, I am confident that the elderly, the poor, the homeless, and the digitally excluded will be reassured to know that a plan exists somewhere. I was also intrigued by the system’s admirable restraint regarding scope. It will begin with only a few modest attributes — name, date of birth, nationality, and biometric image — while exploring the possibility of additional fields such as address and other identifiers in the future. The consultation also raises the possibility of digital identity for children from birth or adolescence. It is heartening to see such forward thinking: a lifelong identity record beginning at the very start of a citizen’s life is surely the most efficient way to ensure administrative continuity. The Government emphasises that the system will help combat fraud, which already represents a large share of recorded crime. I agree that criminals will undoubtedly be discouraged by the existence of a national digital identity infrastructure. Cybercriminals, phishing operations, and identity thieves are historically known for abandoning their activities the moment governments introduce a new digital platform. Finally, I appreciate the Government’s assurances regarding public trust. Britain has, in the past, rejected national identity card systems due to concerns about cost, surveillance, and civil liberties. It is therefore deeply reassuring to learn that this proposal is entirely different. After all, the previous proposal involved a physical card. This one merely involves a digital framework capable of verifying identity across multiple sectors of life, linking government services, and being carried constantly on a personal device. The distinction could not be clearer. For these reasons, I would like to thank the Government for its efforts to reassure the public that the proposed system is voluntary, privacy-preserving, secure, inclusive, limited in scope, resistant to mission creep, and worthy of complete trust. I must admit that after carefully reading the consultation, I find myself in the unusual position of understanding exactly what the Government says it intends and simultaneously feeling no more confident that the system will remain as limited or benevolent as promised. In summary, while I appreciate the ambition to modernise identity verification, the proposal appears to construct the technological foundations for a permission-based identity infrastructure in which the state ultimately controls the mechanisms by which citizens prove who they are. History suggests that systems with such capabilities rarely remain as narrow as their original descriptions. I therefore remain unconvinced that this proposal protects the privacy, autonomy, and freedoms of citizens in the way the consultation claims. Yours faithfully, Glen Maney @_Government_UK @Keir_Starmer @thecoastguy @TheFreds @AllianceDemFree @juneslater17 @LiberalParty_UK @reformparty_uk @Togetherdec @RbinmanRichard @FatEmperor @mattletiss7 @LeilaniDowding @BelmontAccord @liamtuffs1 @labourpress @UKLabour @GBNEWS @SkyNews @SkyNewsPolitics @Channel4News @auksupporters @DrTeckKhong @Conway_NE @MCRobredz @KenJLThomson @rustyrockets @davidicke @benhabib6 @RestoreBritain_ @