Digital ID Cards – Will They Really Help Control Illegal Immigration ?

There has been much talk in the press and online recently about the Government’s intention to roll out digital ID in the UK.

As yet, the fine detail of the cards themselves, and the process of implementation,  hasn’t been presented. Here are some thoughts regarding the practicability and implications of such a scheme, assuming the end result is some sort of smartphone-based personal ID system.

First, let’s consider desirability.

We are told that a personal ID card will benefit us in allowing quicker access to all manner of benefits and other state provisions, as well as removing the cumbersome requirements for paper documents needed to prove ID and address at present. That may indeed be the case, but we seem to have managed with the old paper system for many years, and most people do have access to either a passport or a driving licence, and can provide some form of address confirmation unless they are actually homeless. Indeed the application for one of the new digital IDs will in itself require some form of proof of ID and residence, so everyone will have to present these at some point during the rollout process to qualify.

The other side of the coin, of course, is a fierce natural resistance to being required to ‘present one’s papers’ that we Brits have traditionally displayed in the past. Surmounting this hurdle will be a difficult task for any government that tries to usurp our right to personal anonymity when out and about…let alone this one. Starmer is currently shying away from making it a legal requirement to present a digital ID when required to, the only exception being when the individual start a new employment. There are already fears, though, that once the system has been introduced, such a general requirement will be put on the statute books, and we will all be liable to present ID if required by the authorities, or face arrest.

What about the inherent risks of entrusting our unique ID to a smartphone, whether or not the scheme is compulsory ?

In my view, these are quite substantial. The media are currently highlighting the sharp increase in phone thefts in recent months, particularly in London. What’s more, there is good evidence that the principal motivation for the thieves is not the price they can get for the handsets themselves, but the value of the data we store on them.

Many of us (rather unwisely in my view) store virtually all of our current lifestyle data on these devices, including banking apps, crypto currency wallets and all manner of other key ID-containing apps, any or all of which could render us bankrupt in the wrong hands, literally within minutes of a theft. 

Banks are reluctant to compensate for financial losses, and any personal info such as treasured photos that are lost with the phone cannot be replaced. It is frankly amazing to me that so many people make no attempt at backing-up their phone data, and are happy to use these devices when out and about with very little thought to their vulnerability…until it’s too late, and they are the hands of one of the any electric-bike mounted thieves currently roving around our cities, seemingly completely unchallenged by the authorities.

All this begs the question of what would happen to one’s personal digital ID if a similar scheme to the one the Swiss population have justnarrowly approved, where the digital ID is unique to a single device, which then gets stolen ?

Would we be able to cancel the original ID and request another one, as we do when losing a credit or debit card ? And how would we prove who we were in order to do so ? ID theft has mushroomed in recent years and phone-based digital IDs will make life even easier for the criminals, particularly if the phone gets stolen when it’s open, as is often the case during a snatch. Perhaps not such a clever idea then, when you think about it…..

And what about controlling immigration ?

The short answer to the question in the title of this article is: “…probably not…”

The black economy in UK is positively thriving at present, and the authorities seem to be able to do little to control it, primarily due to a complete lack of the resources that would be needed to even start tackling it effectively. Some of our cities are virtual ‘no-go’ areas for trading standards officers and even local police, particularly in so-called ‘ghettoised’ areas where organised crime run by foreign nationals has a strong hold on the community, who will thus not report crime for fear of reprisals. Many of our illegals are trafficked by such individuals specifically to work in the black economy for little or no wages. Sadly, these modern-day slaves are regarded by their ‘masters’ as expendable, and will continue to work as captives with no regard for any new legal ID requirements, as will their 'employers'.

Digital IDs are coming, without a doubt, but the message at present is a clear one….don’t rush to subscribe to any new voluntary scheme just for the sake of it…there’s too much risk involved in early adoption. If digital ID ever becomes compulsory for anything other than proving work entitlement, hopefully by that time sufficient safeguards will have evolved to make the process less hazardous, and we will have managed to rid our streets of some of the odious parasites involved in organised phone theft and now living very nicely off our own carelessness.

I can't help wondering whether a better solution for protecting something as valuable as a unique personal ID might be to keep it away from our smartphones altogether, and employ some other eletronic means for storing and presenting it. A few years back, in the days before OTP texts came into general use, banks started supplying small digital devices to their account holders which were used to generate codes to access their accounts online. These could be mass-produced cheaply and issued with IDs already embedded in their memories. This would only need to be presented occasionally, so would not need to be carried at all times, thus solving the theft vulnerability problem, and avoiding disenfranchising anyone without a working smartphone modern enough to accomodate the new technology. It would also discourage forgeries, since the data could be encrypted to prevent tampering.

For anyone who hasn't yet succumbed to the phone theft scourge, I'd advise the following: 1) take a look at your backup strategy; 2) remove any 'vulnerable' apps you don't need on the phone; 3) make sure you've implemented a screen password lock; 4) be aware of what's going on around you at all times when using your phone 'out and about'; 5) Keep a separate written record of any details you'll need to help clear up the mess if the phone is stolen. 

By doing all this, you stand a better chance of not falling victim, and even if you do, you'll have less to lose, and the clear-up process should be a bit leass traumatic. 

One positive in all this is the likelihood that Starmer will push for rapid implementation….and make himself and his government even more unpopular than they are now. Another ‘nail in the coffin’ for 2029 ?

We can but hope…..

First published 8.10.25