Digital ID in the Cradle of Liberty (My Last EconLog Post)

On September 26, the office of the British Prime Minister revealed that

“A new digital ID scheme aims to help reduce illegal employment while simplifying access to essential government services for most individuals. Digital ID will be compulsory for Right to Work verifications.”

I initially prepared to present a counterargument against government ID documentation but soon remembered I had already addressed this topic in an EconLog entry more than five years ago: “The Danger of Government-Issued Photo ID” (January 8, 2019). I believe my points remain relevant, and I suggest revisiting that post. However, I want to highlight a few critical aspects, especially given the current emphasis from the UK government.

Digital ID introduces greater risks than traditional photo IDs, primarily because it significantly lowers the barriers for governmental tyranny. Consider, as seen in China, the potential for linking social credit scores to digital IDs as a method of rewarding compliant citizens. There’s invariably a new justification for expanding government authority, convincing citizens that such concessions are in their own best interests.

Some readers might question my reference to Leviathan. Yet, I urge them to contemplate how state power has grown, even with some corrections for past injustices towards minority groups, to a level where it now appears uncontestable. The increasing support for this power from diverse sectors only heightens its potential threat.

The British government abolished the wartime national ID card only seven years after World War II, and that was only after a citizen stood up against it. In 1950, Clarence Henry Willcock, when stopped by police while driving, refused to present his ID card, asserting, “I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing.” He faced two legal defeats, but his resistance sparked a movement that culminated in the ID card’s repeal in 1951. (See Mark Pack, “Forgotten Liberal Heroes: Clarence Henry Willcock.”)

One rationale for mandatory ID papers is their role in facilitating citizens’ actions—working, in the context of current British policy—despite regulations against foreigners. Ultimately, the control of noncitizens serves as a pretext for controlling citizens. Even advocates for some immigration oversight should recognize this. If you are a US citizen, ostensibly secure from deportation, how can you authenticate this status without official identification (and possibly after spending time in an immigration detention center)?

The expansion of government services provides a second broad justification for requiring all beneficiaries to be tagged (I hesitate to say “like cattle,” as that is overly clichéd). Even those who support these services must acknowledge that such tagging represents one of their costs. This cost, in terms of both freedom and dignity, escalates when a singular, all-encompassing identifier is mandated for government services. The underlying reason is that it further simplifies surveillance and coercive measures for the state.

My earlier post recounted how, in 1940, Philippe Pétain’s collaborationist government in non-occupied France leveraged the argument of facilitating citizens’ convenience to impose an official ID card, two decades after doing so for foreigners. Regarding his digital ID initiative, the British Prime Minister commented that it would “also provide ordinary citizens with numerous advantages, such as proving their identity efficiently to access essential services instead of searching for an old utility bill.” He also added it would “assist the Home Office in taking action against employers hiring illegally.”

Notably, the example of India, cited by the British government to bolster its case, indicates that a singular electronic ID might lack the intended monopolistic efficiency if it generates an obsession with IDs. Various agencies might be tempted to develop their own digital IDs targeting specific groups. (“India Is Obsessed With Providing Its Citizens with ‘Unique IDs’,” The Economist, May 20, 2025.)

In a society that values freedom, certain tools should not be within the reach of the government. Limits on liberty are preferable to perfection achieved through servitude. However, I am concerned we may have lost the battle against ID cards—”we,” referring to those who recognize the necessity of constraining state power.

During the early 2000s, I spent time in England and was encouraged to find that official ID was rarely required in everyday life—such as when renting a film. A driver’s license was required for operating a vehicle, illustrating how “real ID” has gained acceptance among many Americans. Over two decades ago, Tony Blair’s Labour government was already planning a mandatory ID card, but, contrary to a straightforward view of Leviathan, the initiative was ultimately scrapped by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats after the 2010 election. Nevertheless, nothing in the theory implies that Leviathan (as an institution) will only attempt to seize additional powers a single time.

******************************

This EconLog entry (my 797th) marks my final contribution. I am grateful to Liberty Fund for the privilege of being part of this blog, and to my readers, whose insights often shaped my perspective, even if it wasn’t always overtly evident! I invite you to follow and engage with my writings on my Substack newsletter, Individual Liberty. I also maintain a list of my articles, with links, on my simplified website, including contributions to Regulation.

Featured image is from ID Card by Gareth Harper under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license.

RECENT POST