Скачать или смотреть KENYAS REJECT THE DIGITAL ID (Here’s Why Keir Starmer’s U.K. Digital ID Is Dangerous)

The implementation of a digital ID system presents significant disadvantages that raise serious concerns about privacy, security, and social equity. A primary risk is the creation of a centralized database that acts as a "honeypot for hackers," making it a prime target for cyberattacks and data breaches, which could expose millions to identity theft, fraud, and blackmail.
The potential for such breaches is not hypothetical; historical failures in government systems worldwide demonstrate that no database is perfectly secure.
Furthermore, the collection and centralization of vast amounts of personal data increase the risk of misuse by both private actors and governments, potentially enabling surveillance, profiling, and control.
Digital ID systems also threaten fundamental civil liberties by eroding privacy and the right to anonymity in everyday life, such as when renting property, accessing healthcare, or applying for jobs.
This shift toward a "checkpoint society" normalizes constant identity verification, fostering a culture of suspicion and undermining individual autonomy.
The potential for increased state control is particularly concerning, as mandatory digital ID could become a precondition for accessing essential services like employment, benefits, or housing, effectively coercing compliance and enabling exclusion for those who refuse or are unable to participate.
This power imbalance could be exploited by future authoritarian regimes to target dissidents, restrict protest rights, or facilitate mass deportations.
Another major disadvantage is the risk of discrimination and exclusion, particularly for vulnerable populations. Millions, including the elderly, those with limited digital literacy, and individuals in rural areas with poor internet connectivity, may be unable to access services due to technical barriers.
For example, only about 20% of Universal Credit applicants in the UK can use online ID verification methods, highlighting the practical injustices that arise when digital ID becomes a requirement.
The system may also be used by abusers to deny others access to jobs or services by withholding digital access, and errors in government databases could lead to institutional discrimination.
Additionally, the integration of digital ID with artificial intelligence and machine learning systems raises concerns about opaque decision-making, algorithmic bias, and lack of transparency, potentially leading to unfair outcomes in areas like credit scoring or employment.
The use of biometric data, such as facial recognition or gait analysis, further increases surveillance risks, especially when these systems are centralized and lack robust data protection safeguards.
Even if the government claims strong encryption and secure cloud hosting, the involvement of foreign tech vendors and the history of government system failures suggest that the UK’s ability to manage such a system securely is questionable.
Given these risks, many experts and civil society organizations argue that digital ID should not be mandatory and that individuals must have the right to opt out without facing negative consequences.
The potential for function creep—where the system’s use expands beyond its original purpose to encompass broader surveillance—makes it a dangerous tool that could fundamentally undermine democratic values and social cohesion.
Therefore, the disadvantages of digital ID, including threats to privacy, security, equality, and freedom, strongly suggest that people should not support or adopt such a system unless it is built on principles of decentralization, consent, data minimization, and robust legal protections.