An Oxfordshire council has decided to officially oppose the UK government’s proposal for mandatory digital ID.
The South Oxfordshire District Council has approved a motion from [1] the Liberal Democrats to formally [2] oppose the UK government's digital ID plans. The motion contends that the initiative is an expensive measure that could undermine public trust, fails to address the real issues confronting residents in South Oxfordshire, and does not uphold the fundamental British values of liberty, privacy, and fairness. The council leader has been urged to send a letter to [3] the Home Secretary and the Minister for Digital Infrastructure, requesting the cancellation of specific plans and a prohibition on the procurement of surveillance equipment from China due to concerns regarding data security and potential espionage risks.
The scheme will involve [4] the issuance of digital IDs to all UK citizens and individuals seeking employment in the UK, serving as proof of identity and the right to work, with 10 Downing Street claiming it will illegal migration. Currently, these IDs will only be mandatory for employment verification, but there are plans for their potential use in accessing other services, such as driving licenses, in the future. Critics have expressed [5] concerns regarding the possible impact on civil liberties, data protection, and privacy. Akiko Hart the Liberty director said, “In a digital world, there is a greater need for a safe and secure way to prove our identities, but decades of data scandals and faulty programmes suggest the government can’t be trusted here.”
The Oxfordshire council has been urged to annually disclose information regarding all its CCTV systems, detailing the manufacturer and product name. Additionally, there is a call to prohibit the future use of facial recognition and biometric surveillance technologies, as well as any surveillance equipment associated with China or Russia. Mike Giles, [6] a Liberal Democrat councillor who proposed the motion said, “Labour’s mandatory ID scheme comes with a host of privacy, data security and digital inclusion concerns. South Oxfordshire has voted to protect the interests of local residents, by opposing mandatory ID, rogue state surveillance and the use of biometric technology. Liberal Democrats will always stand up for civil liberties and I am pleased South Oxfordshire has become the first council to oppose these intrusive plans.”
Oxfordshire council’s decision to approve the motion to oppose the digital ID scheme comes after [7] councillors in Warrington endorsed a motion opposing government proposals requiring a digital ID for employment. Mocky Khan, [8] a Labour councillor, who opposed the motion by the Lib Dems said, “Digital identity can modernise how people prove their right to work or access services, but it must protect privacy, be transparent, and work for everyone including those without easy digital access. Rather than reject it outright, we should engage constructively to ensure any system serves people and safeguards their rights.” Nevertheless the majority of councillors on the district council, under Lib Dem leadership, supported the motion.
The Lib Dems are have been actively campaigning against the UK government's mandatory digital ID scheme and [9] are calling for members of the general public to sign up their e-mail updates, “Keir Starmer says everyone in the UK will be required to have mandatory digital ID. That’s not the kind of country we want to be one where people are forced to turn over their private data just to go about their daily lives. People shouldn’t be turned into criminals just because they can’t have a digital ID, or choose not to. This will be especially worrying to millions of older people, people living in poverty and disabled people who are more likely to be digitally excluded,” stated the website.
Meanwhile, James O’Sullivan, [10] the founder of smartphone security company Nuke From Orbit has warned that the government's digital ID scheme may be vulnerable to theft, potentially [11] providing criminals with the information needed to impersonate individuals or open bank accounts in their names. “We're already seeing that play out in real time. Now, criminals who steal phones don't steal them for the phone. They steal it more for the data that is on it, and as the value and the breadth of that data increases, so will the volume and severity of the theft of things.”