The promise and peril of digital ID

ID cards were introduced for both world wars but were abolished after each as there was a widespread feeling that they were becoming invasive, increasingly used for more general purposes and contrary to British values.

This week, at the Global Progress Action Summit, the prime minister announced his plans to introduce digital ID to tackle illegal immigration and streamline access to services, saying, ​“You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It’s as simple as that.” However, much like other hot topics such as the digital pound, this plan is prompting public debates about privacy, security and relationship between citizen and state.

Polling shows opinion is divided, with people almost evenly split between support and opposition. Meanwhile, a parliamentary petition opposing digital ID has attracted more than 2 million signatures in less than 48 hours. This will mean that parliament will have an additional debate on this issue in the coming weeks. 

Sponsored

What are the risks and benefits?

There are legitimate arguments on both sides. A well-designed digital identity could reduce fraud, make access to welfare and healthcare smoother, and deny criminal networks the ability to use forged documents. If introduced carefully, it can be a tool of justice and order, not control. But the risks many fear are also real, and they go to the heart of what it means to live in a free, open society.

Is digital ID inherently illiberal? Not necessarily. Technology can be morally neutral; its liberty-respecting or liberty-eroding character depends on its design. Compulsion, however, tying a person’s right to work or to access essential services to a single government-controlled credential, can slide quickly toward illiberal outcomes if not carefully handled. 

Against

The government has insisted that it will ​“work for those who aren’t able to use a smartphone, with inclusion at the heart of its design”, but it is not yet clear how they will seek to achieve this. Likewise, cybersecurity experts and civil liberties groups have been blunt: aggregating sensitive data into a national system creates an attractive target. Past public-sector breaches teach a simple lesson: no system is invulnerable. 

Is mission creep possible? History suggests it is. Systems built for a narrow purpose often expand in use. Left unchecked, the risk is that the UK will shift into what some civil libertarians call a ​‘papers, please’ society, a culture where proof of identity must be shown at every turn. That slow expansion, whether driven by convenience, cost pressures or new political priorities is the very thing critics fear. 

The context of this decision is also important. One particular concern for faith communities is whether at some point in the future a digital ID could be used to stifle religious expression or target groups engaged in evangelism. At present, there is no credible evidence that the UK government intends to use digital ID as a tool for ideological policing. However, the worry is not completely unrealistic: threats to free speech are only on the rise. Last year, a preacher was warned that saying ​‘God bless you’ could constitute a crime if it caused distress. For some, trusting the government with more power in this context is not a risk they are willing to take. 

For

However, this criticism doesn’t reflect the fact that we largely already have a compliance based society, with checks existing on renting, employment, education and access to healthcare. Each of these checks currently involves a patchwork of different identity documents such as passports, driving licences and biometric residence permits. Proponents are right to make the case that streamlining this cuts down on the silent killer of bureaucracy, which unfairly targets the most vulnerable. (For example, a survey of about 200 NHS and social care managers found that 20% said they spend seven to eight hours a day on admin and bureaucracy and 6% said bureaucracy had even cost lives.)

On a governmental level, our current system is also extremely inefficient for gathering and distributing coherent data that is vital for national security. This is not only expensive but also leads to a loosened grip on the government’s ability to exercise key functions. For example, despite all the checks, illegal immigrants regularly get access to bank accounts. 

Digital ID has the potential to strengthen social trust in a society where trust is increasingly frayed. By giving individuals a unified means to verify who they are, such systems may help restore confidence in everyday transactions. 

Critics are right to mourn a society where public trust has eroded to the extent that we need something like digital ID to safeguard our lives. However, if implemented with caution, digital ID can be the answer to, rather than the cause of, this distrust. 

How should Christians respond?

Christians should remember two cautions. First, resist alarmism. We should not assume the worst from our policymakers. Technology often amplifies anxieties, but calm, practical scrutiny and engagement will serve better than hysteria. Second, keep our deepest identity clear. The gospel refuses to let us be defined by documents or dossiers: ​“If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: the old has gone, the new is here.” (2 Corinthians 5:17). No matter how powerful a government, our dignity will always derive from being made in God’s image, not from a line of code.

We therefore need a faithful civic posture. Let us be ​“as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). A digital ID could make life easier for many rather than be a step towards authoritarianism, but without courage from civil society, churches and parliamentarians, authoritarianism is not beyond the realms of possibility.