---

The UK Government has opened a consultation “to support” digital identification and the sharing of personal data.  They are not consulting whether the public agrees with their sinister plan.  Neither does the Government’s “consultation” encourage public debate on the matter. They are surveying the public in such a way as to garner support.

The list of government departments that would share your data under this proposed plan is extensive and, be warned, not exhaustive – the organisations that will have access to your data, and ultimately control over your life, will grow.  Alarmingly your data will also be shared with unknown private organisations which provide services to a public authority.

The consultation is open until 1 March 2023.  Don’t buy into their rigged survey, but instead email the Government’s Data Sharing Legislation Team at dea-data-sharing@digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk and say “NO.”

History of Britain’s Fight Against IDs

On 21 February 1952, Winston Churchill’s government scrapped ID cards. Why? In his words, to “set the people free.”

In 1950, Harry Willcock, a 54-year-old London dry cleaner, was stopped by a policeman who demanded to see his ID. He refused, telling him simply, “I am against this sort of thing.”

Mr Willcock was prosecuted and the case reached the High Court in 1951.  In the judgment, Lord Chief Justice Goddard said the 1939 Act was “never passed for the purposes for which it is now apparently being used” and that using the law in this way “tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers (…) such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police.”

These words have an eerie relevance to us today. Every word could be applied to the use of the Public Health Act 1984, under which anything from visiting our families to political leafleting is currently deemed a criminal act. History teaches us that emergency measures tend to extend in duration and purpose, often to the disadvantage of citizens.

The UK rejected ID cards again after, in the wake of 9/11, then Prime Minister Tony Blair told us we couldn’t possibly fight terrorism without them.

Government proposals for ID cards have been periodically revived.  During the covid era, the government has tried to re-introduce IDs in various forms, for example, vaccine passports and track and trace apps.  The Government has also been quietly developing a “digital identity framework” so that, for example, we can use facial recognition apps connected to government-approved identity systems.  There is also the “Electoral Integrity Bill” to require voter ID.  It is only a matter of time before all these ID demands converge into a national ID system – that makes Mr Willcock’s fight against his paper ID card look quaint.

We now are faced with the latest move to impose IDs onto us.  On 4 January 2023, the Government opened a public consultation on “draft legislation to support identity verification.”  There are 12 questions in the survey.  Not one of those questions asks whether the Government’s scheme should be implemented.  The survey makes out it is a fait accompli.  They are not consulting the public; they are attempting to herd us in the direction they want us to go.

As Rich Vobes said: “EMAIL SHOULD BE THE WAY WE RESPOND. We are being hoodwinked into answering the questionnaire and we should not, we should just send an email with a simple, NO to the whole idea.  Please send your response by 1 March 2023 to The Data Sharing Legislation Team at dea-data-sharing@digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk.”

The fight against ID cards is about more than just databases – it’s about protecting the presumption of innocence and liberty, which is the basis of a free society. It’s about empowering citizens against overbearing authorities. We are more than just a number, and registration code, or worse, a vaccine risk score.

The UK should be showing courage and leadership to build a freer future – to “set the people free.” Instead, with the various forms of IDs they have been and are trying to implement, the Government is offering us a future of more controls, not more freedom.

Read more: Britain’s Fight Against Id: From War IDs To Vaccine Passports, Big Brother Watch, 21 February 2021

Consultation on draft legislation to support identity verification

Richard Vobes talked about the Government’s “public consultation” in a recent podcast, see below.  “The [consultation] is written in a very strange way to guide you almost to pretty much agree with everything they say,” he noted.

The Government’s selling point to get the public to buy into the implementation of this system is to make it easier and more convenient for users.  However, anything that’s easy and convenient may not be easy or convenient for just you, it will be far more easier and convenient for a government body to know more about you than you really want to say.  Each separate government department will have all the information about you, from all departments, through your digital government identity.

Below we have selected a few statements included on the Government’s consultation webpage.

Foreword

In his foreword, Alex Burghart MP, Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, said:

“The proposed legislation will also unlock the full benefits of a new government identity verification system, known as GOV.UK One Login … The government is committed to realising the benefits of digital identity technologies without creating ID cards.”

So Britons have resisted ID cards but they thought they would sneak them in by making those cards electronic – after all, the Government’s reasoning seems to be, they’re not paper or plastic cards and perhaps this is why Britons have resisted them all these years, so if we remove the problem by making them electronic then the public should be happy.

Introduction

“This information sharing power is aimed at improving or targeting public services to individuals or households in order to improve their well-being.”

To meet the criteria in Section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and secure parliamentary approval, the objectives of the scheme must meet three criteria.  One of those being: “the purpose is the improvement of the well-being of individuals or household.”

We were curious as to how they thought a digital ID system could improve our “well-being.”  But a search through the webpage demonstrates that – apart from a question in the survey “to what extent do you agree that the proposed new objective meets [the condition that data sharing will improve the well-being of individuals or households]” – these are the only times “well-being” is mentioned.  There is no reference to “health” or “welfare” either, except as a department that will be part of the scheme.  We can, therefore, assume it is psychobabble to try to convince the gullible that it is for their own good.

The Proposal

“The proposed legislation will allow more people than ever before to successfully prove their identity online and access government services.”

“In order to successfully deliver this service, participating public authorities will need to be able to check and share several types of government-held personal data with the identity verification service.”

What is the new data sharing objective?

“The data sharing objective would enable public bodies to share a wider range of specified data than is currently possible. This benefits individuals and households by improving digital inclusion, reducing the burden on individuals of providing the same information to different public authorities many times, and makes access to services easier.”

“Digital inclusion”?  What exactly is that? More psychobabble?  Do we want to be included in their digital ID scheme? No. No one should be “included.” We want the entire plan to be shelved.