(READ below to see how you can respond quickly and easily)
The UK government has announced a proposed digital government identity verification system under the banner ‘GOV.UK One Login’.
This new system will replace the number of existing ways we log into government websites to access public services online and is a huge concern as it includes sensitive information such as photographs, passport numbers, and transaction data and allowing the government to share the personal information of millions of users between government departments.
We believe that it is our responsibility to make our voices heard in opposition to this proposal which would usher in the beginnings of a social credit system to behaviourally manage and control the public.
Seven decades after Winston Churchill’s government scrapped ID cards, we cannot accept plans that will take us closer to becoming a China style surveillance state and at the mercy of a digital dictatorship. It is vital that we respond to stop the technocratic takeover they are planning for us.
You can read more about the consultation here:
HOW TO RESPOND:
Click on the button below to launch the consultation.
Copy and paste suggested responses as below.
The deadline to respond to this consultation is by Wednesday 1st March but DO NOT DELAY and submit your response by end of Tuesday 28th February instead.
Suggested answers:
1. Name (optional)
2. Email (optional)
3. Are you an individual or an organisation? (select individual and type 'N/A' in the box)
4. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please specify the sector/type (select 'non-applicable')
5. The first condition for new objectives under section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 is that the data sharing should either:
a) improve or target a public service provided to individuals or households; or
b) provide a benefit (whether financial or otherwise) to individuals or households.
Strongly disagree
- I strongly disagree with the proposed objective because it fails to provide clear evidence that the data sharing will improve public services. The objective appears to be motivated by administrative convenience rather than a genuine desire to improve public services.
- I strongly disagree with the proposed objective because the benefits to individuals or households are minimal and do not outweigh the potential harm of sharing their data. The objective does not provide any evidence that the benefits of the data sharing are significant enough to justify the potential harm to individuals' privacy and security.
- I strongly disagree with the proposed objective because it fails to provide adequate measures to protect the privacy and security of individuals' data. The objective does not provide any meaningful safeguards to ensure the privacy and security of individuals' personal data and appears to be based on a flawed assumption that individuals' data will be safe and secure simply because it is being shared for a public service delivery objective.
6. The second condition is that data sharing should improve the well-being of individuals or households.
Strongly disagree
- I strongly disagree that the proposed data sharing meets the second condition of improving the well-being of individuals and households. The government has not provided any concrete evidence or explanation of the benefits that would accrue to individuals or households, making it impossible for me to see how the proposed data sharing meets this condition.
- I do not see any significant benefit for individuals or households that would justify the potential harm of data sharing. The proposed data sharing initiative raises serious concerns about privacy and security, and the government has failed to provide any reasonable justification for why this data needs to be shared between various public authorities.
- I have serious concerns about the privacy and security risks posed by the proposed data sharing. The lack of transparency and accountability surrounding the proposed data sharing initiative is deeply concerning. Without sufficient measures it would go against the principles of data protection as outlined in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Human Rights Act 1998.
7. The third condition is that the data sharing should support the delivery, administration, monitoring or enforcement of a service provided by a particular public authority (or authorities).
Strongly disagree
- I strongly disagree that the proposed data sharing meets the third condition as it seems like an overreach of the government's authority. The government is proposing to collect and share information far beyond what is necessary to support the delivery of services and it raises serious concerns about individual privacy and autonomy.
- The proposed data sharing involves too much information being collected and shared, far beyond what is needed to support the delivery of services. The potential for this information to be misused is high, which poses a risk to individuals and households rather than a benefit.
- I have concerns that the proposed data sharing could negatively impact the delivery of services rather than improve it. Sharing too much information across different government agencies could result in confusion and inefficiencies, ultimately leading to a decrease in the quality of services provided to individuals and households.
8. To what extent do you agree that the following government departments should become a public body eligible to share data for public service delivery objectives
Strongly disagree (for all government departments)
I strongly disagree with all of the listed departments becoming a public body eligible to share data for public service delivery objectives because:
- I am worried that the government might use the data they are proposing to share for unintended purposes or in a way that is not in the best interest of individuals and households. I do not trust that they will use the data ethically or responsibly, and I fear that the information could be used to infringe on the rights and freedoms of citizens. Furthermore, I believe that the government has a history of overstepping its bounds and collecting too much information, and I worry that this proposal is just another way for them to amass even more data on individuals.
- The lack of trust in government departments to properly secure individuals' personal data is a valid concern. Without sufficient measures to protect the privacy and security of this information, I fear that it may be exposed to unauthorised parties, leading to potential harm to individuals.
- The collection and sharing of individuals' personal data should be done with their express consent and only the minimum amount necessary should be shared. The overreach of government departments in collecting and sharing vast amounts of data is concerning and may lead to an infringement of individual privacy and civil liberties. It is crucial that measures are put in place to ensure that data sharing is only done in a manner that is both secure and respectful of individual privacy rights.
9. To what extent do you agree that the following government departments should be able to share data for the identity verification objective?
Strongly disagree (for all government departments)
- I am also concerned about the government's ability to track and trace individuals with the data they want to share. This level of surveillance and monitoring could potentially undermine civil liberties and personal freedoms, and it is unclear if there are enough checks and balances in place to ensure that this data is not misused. I believe that this level of monitoring raises serious privacy concerns, and the government should only be able to access this information in exceptional circumstances and with proper safeguards in place.
- I am concerned about the potential misuse or abuse of individuals' personal information that could occur if government departments were able to share data for identity verification purposes. This type of information is extremely sensitive and vulnerable to theft or misuse, and I believe that proper safeguards must be put in place to ensure that individuals' personal information is protected.
- I believe that individuals should have control over their personal data and that sharing it among government departments raises privacy concerns. Individuals have a right to privacy, and the sharing of their personal information should only occur in specific circumstances where it is necessary for the delivery of a service. If the proposed objective does not limit the amount of personal information that is being shared or how it is being used, it raises serious concerns about privacy.
10. Are there any other public bodies not proposed in this consultation which you think should be able to share data for the identity verification objective?
Select 'No'
- The current state of data privacy is not robust enough, and adding more entities to the mix only increases the risk of data breaches and violations of personal privacy.
- I believe that the existing public bodies already have enough access to personal data, and expanding access to more entities not only increases the risk of data breaches but also raises questions about the purpose and necessity of such access. It is important to consider the privacy implications of each data sharing request and ensure that the data is only being shared for a compelling reason.
- I am worried that expanding access to more public bodies may create a culture of over-reliance on personal data and undermine the privacy rights of individuals. The right to privacy is a fundamental right and should not be disregarded in the name of convenience or efficiency. It is important to strike a balance between public service delivery and privacy rights, and more government access to personal data may not be necessary or justified in this context.
11. To what extent do you agree that the data items, known as data attributes, as described under this proposed objective are consistent with, and appropriate for, the delivery of the objective?
Strongly disagree
As a concerned citizen, I strongly disagree with the proposed data sharing practices outlined in this consultation. I believe that sharing the following data items poses a threat to my privacy and my human rights:
- Full name: A full name is a highly personal and identifying piece of information, and I do not believe the government has a right to share this information for the purposes of identity verification or without an individuals express permission.
- Date of birth: A date of birth is also highly personal information, and I do not believe that it should be shared with the government or any public authorities. This information can be used to link an individual's identity to a vast amount of sensitive information, and is an invasion of privacy.
- Home address: A home address is a private and intimate piece of information that should not be shared without express permission especially as the sharing of it may not just affect the individual but also any other members of the household. Sharing of this information violates an individual's right to privacy and puts them at risk of unwanted interference and potential harm by the Government and Government agencies.
- Email address: My email address is used for a variety of purposes, including financial transactions, and I do not believe it should be shared with the government or any public authorities.
- Photographic images: I strongly oppose this data item being shared with the government. The rise in facial recognition cameras raises concerns about government surveillance and tracking of individuals, which infringes on privacy and personal freedom. If the government has access to an individual's photos, it could potentially be used to track their movements and monitor their activities, which is not only invasive but also violates my right to privacy and personal autonomy. This technology also raises concerns about potential errors and misidentification, which could result in false accusations and negative consequences for individuals. The government’s access to my photos would make me feel deeply uneasy and violated, and I do not trust them to use this sensitive information responsibly.
- Passport number or driving licence number: These types of information are highly sensitive and can be used to link my identity to a vast amount of information including my travel and location history. I do not believe that the government should have access to this information and it could be used to restrict free movement of any individual.
- Transaction data: Is perhaps one of the most private forms of information that an individual possesses. The government does not have the right to access or share an individual's transaction data without a compelling and justifiable reason. Doing so creates multiple opportunities for government interference and overreach, including the potential for the government to place restrictions on individuals based solely on their lawful transactions. This type of activity is a clear violation of a person's human rights and must be prevented.
12. To what extent do you consider the proposed sharing of data for the identity verification objective will lead to any individual and/or household losing any benefit?
Strongly agree [ENSURE THIS IS NOT STRONGLY DISAGREE]
- I believe the widespread use of digital IDs for accessing government services and benefits could lead to discrimination against marginalised communities, such as individuals with disabilities, those in poverty, or those who are homeless and lead to a loss of benefits to those people.
- Individuals who are unable to obtain the required digital ID due to financial or technical barriers and those who choose to exercise their rights to not have their data shared may be penalised and lose access to essential services and benefits that are tied to the digital ID system.
- Sharing personal information with the government can result in the creation of a surveillance state, where individuals' movements and behaviours can be tracked and monitored, which could lead to sanctions and loss of benefits at a moments notice.
13. To what extent do you consider the proposed sharing of data for the identity verification objective will lead to any individual and/or household losing any benefit?
Strongly agree [ENSURE THIS IS NOT STRONGLY DISAGREE]
- The proposed sharing of data could result in inaccurate or incorrect information being recorded and shared, leading to errors in identity verification. This could cause individuals or households to be wrongly denied access to services they are eligible for.
- The collection and sharing of personal data for the identity verification objective raises significant privacy concerns, and can lead to a loss of control over one's personal information. This could cause individuals or households to be hesitant about accessing essential services out of fear that their data will be misused.
- The implementation of the legislative change could result in penalties or fines for those who are unable to provide the required identity verification information. This could particularly impact vulnerable or marginalised communities, leading to a loss of access to services they rely on.
14. Do you think the proposed sharing of data for the identity verification objective will negatively impact on people who share any of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 (i.e. age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation)?
Yes
The sharing of sensitive personal information can lead to biased decision-making and discrimination based on protected characteristics. This can result in individuals or households being unfairly denied access to services they are entitled to.
- Age: The proposed sharing of data for the identity verification objective may disproportionately impact elderly individuals who are less technologically literate, leading to them losing access to important services that require digital identification.
- Disability: People with disabilities may face additional barriers to obtaining and using a digital ID, such as difficulties in accessing the technology required or a lack of accommodations for their specific needs, resulting in a loss of access to essential services.
- Marriage and Civil Partnership: The digital ID may not fully recognise the rights and benefits of married or civilly partnered individuals, leading to a loss of access to services and benefits that are dependent on the verification of their relationship status.
- Pregnancy and Maternity: The proposed sharing of data for the identity verification objective may result in pregnant and maternity individuals being unfairly denied access to essential services that require digital identification, due to inadequate provisions for accommodating their unique needs.
- Race: The digitisation of personal data may reinforce existing systemic racial biases, leading to unequal treatment and loss of access to services for individuals from certain racial backgrounds.
- Religion or Belief: The proposed sharing of data for the identity verification objective is unlikely to adequately protect the religious or belief-based data of individuals, leading to potential discrimination and loss of access to services.
- Sex: The requirement for sex to be recorded in the digital ID may result in unequal treatment and discrimination, causing individuals to lose access to important services.
15. Do you have further comments on this proposed objective?
- I am deeply concerned about the privacy implications of this proposed digital ID. The sharing of personal data with the government raises serious questions about the security and protection of my sensitive information.
- The right to privacy is enshrined in multiple international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which state that every individual has the right to protection of their personal information.
- The government has a questionable track record when it comes to data security, and I worry that my personal data will be vulnerable to hacking, misuse, and exploitation if it is stored in a central database.
- There is a real risk of discrimination, as the government may use this digital ID to unfairly target and penalise certain groups of people, particularly those who belong to marginalised communities.
- The collection and storage of biometric data, such as fingerprints and facial recognition scans, raises significant ethical and moral questions. I believe that my biometric data is my personal property and should not be collected or stored without my explicit consent.
- The proposed digital ID system could be used to infringe on my civil liberties and freedom of expression, as the government could use it to track my movements, monitor my online activities, and silence dissent.
- I am opposed to the government having access to my personal photos, as this can be used to track my movements and subject me to facial recognition cameras.
- I fear that the implementation of this proposed digital ID will lead to a loss of benefits or access to services for individuals and households, particularly those who are already struggling.
- The proposal raises serious concerns about the potential for unequal treatment and discrimination against those who share any of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, such as age, disability, race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation.
- I do not believe that the proposed digital ID will lead to any real benefits, as the government has not provided clear evidence of the necessity or effectiveness of such a system. The costs of implementation and maintenance could be better spent on other important public services.
- I am deeply opposed to the government's attempts to create a surveillance state and to restrict our freedoms in the name of security. The proposed digital ID is a dangerous step in the wrong direction, and I strongly urge the government to reconsider its position.
16. Please indicate whether you are happy for the relevant points and comments you have made to be published in the consultation summary report:
Select 'I am happy for my responses to be published anonymously'