> You could make it even more robust if you required a cellphone store employee

And you would accept a device that would require a third party for setup?!?!?!

That is what I meant with "either proving identity or lunatic workarounds"...

That "robust enough" is full grounds to have a population rise, given that an expectable combination of stupidity as ineptitude and stupidity as radical psychosis from the state can shift the "robust enough" to substantial dystopia. Have they (the keir starmer bunch) or have they not issued a law without the crucial details - how to do it, the whole matter is absurd without full clarity on "how to do it"?

> Have they (the keir starmer bunch) or have they not issued a law without the crucial details - how to do it, the whole matter is absurd without full clarity on "how to do it"?

This (a law with a separate binding statutory instrument to implement it) is actually a pretty normal formulation of British law. It's not unique to this situation, nor is it a sign of malfeasance. It's worked pretty well before, it is far from unscrutinised (the statutory instruments pass through at least one cross-party committee) and they save us from the absurdity of massive, fully complete legislation written by lobbyists that representatives cannot meaningfully read and end up stuffed with pork barrel, special interest and unrelated legislation.

The law is voted on in the Commons on the basis that a statutory instrument will not exceed its reach. Committees make sure they don't; laws get amended if they do. (Cross-party committees work better in the UK than in the USA)

Again: we do law a bit differently here. I do not think it necessarily inferior to US law.

Yes I accept that every device requires a third party for setup. That setup being namely putting the device in my hands and giving me legal ownership of the device.