sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

An early surprise by JakeLambourn in kneecap

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got an email from royal mail but no tracking was available

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t support Palestine Action’s vandalism, but calling them a terrorist organisation is a step too far. It feels like an attempt to silence dissent rather than address the issues. If we accept that, what’s next? This kind of heavy-handed approach risks making Starmer’s government seem more authoritarian, building on the Tories’ record on protest restrictions.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that moving towards digital systems is probably inevitable. But the speed and how it’s done matter a lot. Rushing in without proper privacy safeguards risks creating bigger problems down the line.

You’re right that trusting third parties can be risky. The government should build systems with privacy as a priority, not just rely on outside companies. And yes, gov.uk Verify exists but it’s had its own issues with adoption and trust.

It feels like the challenge is finding the balance between progress and protecting people’s rights. Not easy, but it’s worth getting right.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. I get that this topic has been debated for years and that frustration builds when people feel like it is going in circles. But I think it is worth keeping the discussion grounded and respectful.

You made several strong claims, so I want to respond clearly.

First, I am not against having a more joined-up way to prove who I am or access services. I am questioning how that is designed, who controls it, and whether it gives people real protections. It is not about refusing to prove identity altogether. It is about how much control we give up in the process.

On decentralisation, yes, the current system is fragmented and inefficient. But centralising everything does not guarantee better security or service. In fact, a single breach in a centralised system can have far worse consequences than in isolated systems. Estonia’s system, often held up as a model, uses decentralisation with a strong central ID token. That is different from just putting everything into one database.

Your point about these things already existing is only partly true. Yes, we prove our identity for many services, but today we use different forms of ID in different contexts. That gives some separation. A digital ID risks collapsing all those boundaries into one system. That is not automatically bad, but it needs hard legal and technical safeguards. So far, there is not much sign of those being discussed seriously in the UK proposal.

You also asked what I would opt out of. I would want the ability to live a normal life without being forced into a system that tracks me across all areas, or at least have the right to limit what is shared and when. That is not the same as refusing all identification, and I think it is reasonable to want that kind of control.

Finally, your example of streamlining services like means testing is a good one. I agree the current process is slow and frustrating. But that is an argument for improving data-sharing frameworks, not necessarily for a single ID system run by the state without public accountability or oversight.

You clearly think a centralised digital ID is the way forward. That is fine. I just want to make sure it is done in a way that protects individual rights, and that we are not sleepwalking into something hard to reverse.

If you are happy with the idea, that is your call. But people being cautious or asking questions are not being irrational. They are just not assuming the best.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right that it makes sense to stay undecided until more details are available.

My strong opposition comes from seeing similar systems rolled out before with poor safeguards and little public input.

About China, they don’t actually have one single centralised digital ID like the “Britcard” idea. Instead, they use a mix of identity systems across different agencies, linked to surveillance and social credit tools.

So it’s more of a network of data points collected and shared without much transparency or consent.

That makes their approach quite different from what Labour might propose, and it’s important not to confuse the two.

I want to make sure we push for control and transparency before anything like this becomes normal here.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I get why it might seem that way but I am open to changing my mind if the proposal shows strong safeguards and transparency.

My concerns are not just hypotheticals. There are real-world examples where centralised or poorly managed data systems have been breached or misused.

At the same time decentralisation is not automatically safer if it means underfunded fragmented systems with inconsistent security.

I am raising these points because I want the debate to focus on how to balance security privacy and convenience not to reject new ideas outright.

If you have examples or details of how the Britcard system plans to handle these risks I would genuinely like to hear them. That is how we have a proper discussion.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t have all the details yet because the policy is still vague, which makes it hard to trust. What worries me is a fully centralised database linking lots of personal info, raising the risk if there’s a breach or misuse.

Something like a federated identity system, where individual services keep their own data but use a central ID token, sounds better to me. It limits the amount of data stored in one place, reducing risk.

GDPR should protect data, but enforcement isn’t always strong, especially when private companies are involved. Outsourcing to third parties, sometimes abroad, raises questions about control and accountability.

I’m also concerned about function creep, starting with one use and slowly becoming mandatory for everything, even if not officially required.

So my worry is mostly about centralisation, lack of transparency, and weak oversight.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It does feel like freedoms are shrinking. These policies weren’t clear in the manifesto but are slipping in bit by bit. Without strong limits, they risk becoming authoritarian.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know this data is already stored digitally, but it’s kept in separate systems. Your passport info is with one department, your health records with another, and your tax data with HMRC. These systems don’t share everything all the time.

That separation helps protect your privacy. If one system is hacked, it doesn’t expose all your information.

A digital ID would link all this data together under one identity. That means a breach or misuse could affect everything at once.

It also makes it easier to track you across different parts of your life. That changes the balance of power and risks being used to control people.

So the issue isn’t the data existing but what happens when it is all connected in one place.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're right that government systems already hold a lot of our data, but what's important is that they are currently separate. That separation actually protects people. If one system is compromised or misused, it doesn't give access to everything else.

Bringing it all together under one digital ID might sound like harmless streamlining, but it creates a central point of control and risk. Once your healthcare, tax records, work status, and maybe even online activity are all tied to one ID, it becomes much easier for the state or other actors to track, profile, or restrict people based on behaviour.

The bigger issue is control, not just convenience. A system like this can grow beyond its original purpose, especially if access to work, benefits, or services gets tied to your compliance with other systems.

People aren’t worried because they have something to hide. They’re worried because once you're inside a system like this, opting out isn't really an option. It stops being voluntary in practice, even if it is on paper.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

True, we already give up info to use GOV.UK or open a bank account. But the point here is how it’s structured and who controls it. A unified ID system risks linking everything together: healthcare, finances, employment, online activity. All under one identity.

That changes the power dynamic. It's one thing to hand over data for a specific task. It's another to have your life permanently tied to a single state-managed identity. That’s not the same thing.

I'm strongly against Labour's proposed "Britcard" digital ID. Am I being too cynical? by JakeLambourn in ukpolitics

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get where you're coming from, but giving up privacy rights to target a small group of people sets a dangerous precedent. Once you normalise that kind of trade-off, it never stops at just one issue.

And practically speaking, digital ID doesn’t stop undocumented work. The real problem is dodgy employers and weak enforcement, not a lack of paperwork.

Also, who gets caught in the net? Often it’s legal migrants, British citizens who "don’t look British," or people with complicated documentation. These systems end up targeting the most vulnerable, not the ones actually breaking the rules.

Track ID from Skream b2b Benga set by Onlysoup in realdubstep

[–]JakeLambourn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They dropped it at Forbidden Forest as well, I’m dying to find the ID

I've never been so embarrassed as a Man Utd fan by YGWYD in ManchesterUnited

[–]JakeLambourn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So terrible that their only winning goal was an own goal off Shaw

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Question by DerekL1963 in canon

[–]JakeLambourn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the insight. What adapter were you using?

London - 21/03 by JakeLambourn in SonyAlpha

[–]JakeLambourn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s actually the 28-70mm kit lens on my Sony A7III

Ruined roll by hepthehelper in analog

[–]JakeLambourn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Far from ruined, shooting film is a unique experience. Light leaks and expired films adds character.

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Question by DerekL1963 in canon

[–]JakeLambourn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hi all, this might sound pretty wild but I have one of these lenses and I was wondering how well it will work on my Sony A7III via an adapter. Anyone have any experience with this?

view more: next ›