Digital ID’s Success Hinges on a Simple Question: “What’s in it for Me?”

Image - Daria Nepriakhina

‍

General politics often fails to cut through into the everyday lives of normal people. In between the school runs, the work commitments and the social lives, a government policy announcement on a Thursday afternoon in September would not usually enter the minds of ordinary Britons. This one did, though. The government’s plan to roll out ID cards has been thrust to the forefront of everyone’s minds and has become a story that, very uncharacteristically for a Labour policy announcement, made people notice.

‍

It has been tried before. Blair saw it as a staple of a modern society, and a key part of his desire for Britain to evolve into a ‘new look’, more technologically advanced nation. From its announcement in 2003 toits introduction in 2009, the programme was surrounded by objection and controversy. Cost, privacy, and civil liberties, were all complaints that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats made real when the new coalition government formally scrapped the programme in 2010.

‍

It's back, though, and is now the policy of this Labour government in today’s political world. No doubt spurred on by French President Macron’s warnings that the lack of a digital ID programme in Britain is a pull factor for small boat migrants, Starmer saw now as a moment fit for their introduction, as part of a political battle to prove that this government can manage the borders. In his announcement, Starmer signalled the introduction of digital IDs as an opportunity for the UK. They’re being portrayed as a vital tool in cracking down on the illegal working of those coming to the UK, as well as bringing benefits for ordinary citizens, namely the ability to access key services more swiftly.

‍

It is the latter of these arguments that the success of the plan hinges on. To the public, the offer of a streamlined identity verification service that adds ease to everyday life sounds a whole lot more enticing than the offer of a verification-checking service placed on you to stop a company employing someone attempting to work illegally. The sound of the government taking action to add a sense of control to its management of asylum, whilst wanted by many, has its limits. If individuals perceive their lives to be constrained by it, something many have already concluded is the case, the policy quickly becomes unpopular.

‍

The polling bears this out. Prior to their announcement, polling from ‘More in Common’ showed that net support (supporters minus opposers) for digital IDs was 35% in the summer, a good starting point. Since their announcement, though, which was done mainly with a focus on their ability to help crack down on illegal working, support for digital IDs has fallen to net levels of -14%.For a project that will require public support to expand as arguments get made, this is not a promising start.

‍

For much of the public, the idea of an innovation that will make their lives easier when accessing services that require verification checks- removing the need to scramble together different identity papers, documents and cards - is a much more enticing one than its right to work equivalent.

‍

Whether or not the public buys this case for digital IDs will decide the success of the plan. It will also make the difference between a Britain more similar to its European neighbours on the personal technological front, or a digital ID plan that ends up dead in a ditch on its second attempt.

‍

Done right, digital IDs could foster greater financial access and inclusion. For a busy working person juggling multiple occupational and family responsibilities around the difficult opening times of their local bank branch, the IDs could remove the need for lengthy and strenuous in-person document checking. Under a system of decentralised data, encrypted into a digital wallet, the individual could either share the information they need with the bank remotely, or conduct in-person checks much more quickly, to access that which they desire with maximum ease.

‍

When accessing NHS services, the need to prove identity, residency or age through seemingly endless form-filling and production would also be gone, with the person in need instantly able to prove all the details necessary to get the treatment, judgement, or assessment they need.

‍

Through a complex system of decentralisation, data protection and encryption modelled on the Estonian ID system, there would be no one database acting as a goldmine to foreign hackers. Users would be able to share only the information they choose with who they need to and would be able to keep track of all logs of access, a level of personal data oversight not currently possible.

‍

The government’s current plans are that the programme for accessing services will be on an opt-in basis, and the mark of digital ID’s success will be the willingness of the public to utilise the streamlining possible under these elements of the scheme.

‍

If enough people don’t buy into the case that digital IDs will make their lives easier, creating a more modern and efficient state that better serves people’s needs and, instead are alarmed by a big brother narrative, it will only serve to embolden the populists who thrive on the idea that government is disconnected from the people it serves. In a world where many already feel out of control, an idea that they are being forced to giveaway personal sovereignty to the state would deepen already present distrust of government. This route is the dark possibility; a digital ID scheme that doesn’t take people on a journey against the fears that many have, thus failing to successfully make the case for the positives of such a programme.

‍

The case for digital IDs will need to be made time and time again if their announcement is to follow through into material policy terms, and the success of arguments that people’s lives will be made easier by the IDs will determine if their second incarnation will suffer the same fate as the first.

‍

Whether or not people perceive the introduction of digital ID to be something that enhances and streamlines access to services, coupled with a strong system of decentralised data protection and self-control is a question that remains. Without general opinion going this way, however, the bombshell dropped by Starmer on Thursday, 25^th September will become simply a sore footnote in the history books of future, digital ID-less, Britain.