I struggle with this.

Wasting political capital on “ID cards” in Britain is a sensible choice for and incoming PM

But a government digital ID is a fantastic basic utility every citizen will need. I would think “just” adding secureenclaves to passports - that seems a low impact approach but have not got a clear plan (any pointers gratefully recvd)

▲

Lio a day ago | parent [-]

You seem to be missing why people object very strongly to digital IDs.

The digital ID along with mandatory "age" checks and a potential ban on VPNs was widely seen as part of a push by the Starmer government to strip people's right to online privacy.

Just switching to a passport based system does not address that.

	▲	lifeisstillgood a day ago \| parent [-]
		I get that people object - but I don’t agree. I walk around with my face and my fingerprints and I shop and I use public services. I don’t go masked, and I don’t jump over the turnstiles to use the services for free. Having my face “online” should be no different. It’s just we don’t trust Amazon or Twitter or 1000 random data brokers. And you know what - we should not trust them. We should regulate them. And on a purely national security level, a passport to participate in online discussions is reasonable - look at metrics around Scottish independence postings online - they dropped 25% the second the 12 day bombing began last year and then cam back on line slowly. I will support to my last breath the right of a Glaswegian to say the English should fuck off, but I object to Iranian or Russian bot farms doing it. And poor sods in Indonesian bot farms should not be able to scare Glaswegian Grannies into handing over their bank details. So, yes loss of privacy is bad, but privacy is not secrecy - my neighbour knows my “secrets”, he is just not trying to sell me something on the back of it.