It's not a "citizen SSO", even non-residents use it when paying taxes, for self-assessment purposes.

It's Government services SSO.

And no, Digital ID wasn't sold as something like this, it has been sold as a way to prevent (?) "illegals" from working, by introducing system entirely similar to the current eVisa.

Unless you slept through all these televised discussions where Keir Starmer with a stern face explained how a wholly-digital system replacing wholly-digital system will stop these pesky immigrants from getting work (it's almost like in the current systems employers didn't have to do these checks already).

There's been SO, SO MANY lies, like that this system wi be similar to the Polish/Estonian, only these two are primarily physical documents, additionally bearing certificates that can be used to authenticate against the participating systems.

Sure, some countries ALSO have a digital form of the ID, but never advertised as a hate-whip against the others.

The primary problem with the only-electronic Certificate you call ID, is that it's supposed to be always online (never cached, like, say...... Um.....actual Digital ids or cards in the normal phones), so it can be cancelled at any point, also due to the errors of the government employees or systems.

The problem is that MANY people had a very serious problems with eVisa already, leading to being bounced off the Border Patrol or failing to prove right to rent.

Even if the idea of the ID was in general good (and I use one I really love, works wonderfully well), this government lied too many times and is forcing us to eat the frog that we've seen many times prior, is half baked and will burst in someone's face.

This idea is tainted because we're lied to and it's half-baked, and hostile in principle, not helpful.

You’re making the assumption that inherently support the creation of Digital ID. I’ve not expressed support for it, I’m just highlighting that if someone is going to criticise it, they should at least understand it well enough to make useful, accurate, criticism.

Criticising ID for making it possible for 3rd parties to verify attributes is a ridiculous thing to do, because that’s the entire point of ID.

If someone wants to criticise the exact mechanism used to allow 3rd parties to verify attributes of someone’s ID, then they should be clear about what that mechanism is, and why it’s problematic. Otherwise it’s impossible to have a sensible discussion, and discuss the various pros and cons of different implementations.

At the end of the day it’s beyond clear we’re moving towards a world where governments and people expect the internet to work closer to how the real world works, with equivalent limitation such as age gating. Putting forward inaccurate, and hyperbolic arguments about arbitrary, indistinct risks associated forms of Digital ID ultimately does us all a huge disservice, because it creates the opportunity to dismiss all criticism as little more than hysterical whining by people uninterested in learning about the societal problems Digital ID is meant to deal with. Which ultimately means we’re removed from the entire discussion about alternative approaches to Digital ID, or implementations of Digital ID that are privacy preserving.

If we’re not involved in those discussions, and seen as creditable contributors to solving the underlying problem, then those pushing for more authoritarian approaches win the argument by default.