“Governments may utilize digital IDs in far more intrusive manners than initially indicated…”
da-kuk/Getty Images
The earliest form of ID I possessed was my delicate laminated driver’s license. In the United States, a driver’s license encompasses a photograph, biometric data (like eye color and height) and date of birth. This triggered a creep in usage; people began to rely on these cards for more than just driving. Establishments like bars would check IDs when serving drinks, using it as irrefutable proof that we were of the legal age to consume alcohol at 21. I distinctly remember being 18 and managing to alter my birthdate with a pencil to enjoy inexpensive cocktails.
This anecdote may seem like a quaint story from a bygone era, but it mirrors ongoing discussions around the adoption of digital ID cards in the UK and elsewhere. While the design of these cards is likely to be radically different, the underlying concerns remain unchanged. For starters, ID cards are perpetually susceptible to expanded usage. Moreover, they can be alarmingly easy to breach.
The British government is not the first to propose that every citizen carries a digital ID application on their smartphones for accessing governmental or public amenities. Digital IDs are already mandatory in nations such as China, Singapore, India, Estonia, and many more. Advocates for digital IDs often cite equivalent justifications: to reduce fraud, facilitate purchasing or travel, and to verify identities without the hassle of multiple physical documents.
“Having this digital ID will enhance your safety,” a government may assert. “You can utilize it for shopping or healthcare services, and as an added perk, you’ll never again be mistaken for an undocumented immigrant and detained without adequate food, sanitation, or care for weeks on end.” Apologies for that oddly specific remark. The main point is that these IDs are presented as solutions for issues that aren’t actually problems (carrying a health insurance card is usually straightforward) or ones that are much larger in scope (immigration is a complex and multifaceted situation).
Now, back to my concern regarding usage creep. What occurs when a government implements a digital ID on your mobile device, intended solely for confirming citizenship status while applying for employment or public assistance? On a fundamental level, it integrates seamlessly with your other applications, potentially sharing data with them. Many of these applications have access to sensitive data, including financial accounts, medical appointments, private messages, and photos.
As journalist Byron Tau outlines in his insightful book Means of Control, numerous applications are already collecting data on you without your awareness, such as your locations, spending patterns, and even what other applications you have installed. Some companies focus on extracting this data from, for instance, dating applications and selling it to third parties, including government institutions.
“
A government might start using its digital ID in much more invasive ways than originally promised
“
In the United States, this practice is predominantly legal, which is quite unsettling. In the UK and Europe, there exist regulations that curb this rampant data collection. However, the technology is readily available. The sole thing safeguarding you from a government ID application that tracks your whereabouts through an unrelated application is, ironically, the government itself. And, as we know, governments and regulations can change. But once you commence using that digital ID for employment, social outings, purchasing snacks, and commuting, it’s unlikely you’ll cast it aside.
This is the entrapment of usage creep. A government might begin employing its digital ID in significantly more invasive manners than initially projected, while citizens may adopt it so broadly that they conclude the trade-offs are justifiable. Why worry about the government knowing your precise location at all times if it streamlines purchases? That might seem fine until the government deems you a threat.
Now, let’s address the hacking aspect. Even if a government refrains from using its digital ID to surveil you, a malicious entity could. A hacker might exploit vulnerabilities in government servers to access your digital ID or infiltrate your phone through an app riddled with spyware. This is why cybersecurity experts have been alerting the British government about the risks associated with digital IDs. Even Palantir, the notorious US surveillance firm, has distanced itself from supporting digital IDs, as one executive aptly noted, they are “highly controversial“.
You shouldn’t merely be anxious about identity theft. Your concern should stem from the possibility of being tracked, having your messages scrutinized, and your bank accounts breached. The truth is, old-fashioned ID cards have their benefits. Yes, they can be misplaced or altered. However, when that occurs, you only lose the card itself, not everything else tied to your identity.
Annalee’s week
What I’m listening to
Our Ancestors Were Messy, a podcast delving into Black celebrity scandals from the past century, drawn from the pages of Black newspapers.
What I’m reading
A Philosophy of Thieves by Fran Wilde, which tells a futuristic tale where the wealthy hire thieves for entertainment at their soirées.
What I’m working on
Investigating the origins of “review bombing,” a phenomenon where a media piece or product faces an avalanche of one-star ratings from users with political agendas.
Topics:
