The UK Labour Party’s Obsession with a (Digital) ID Card: Time to Reconsider

When I returned to the UK in the summer of 2002, to take up an academic position, I was on a panel discussing the adoption of ID Cards. I spoke against an ID Card, immediately after the Home Secretary (at that time) David Blunkett, in a Labour government, set out the UK government’s plan for a national ID card. This would have been the first introduction of such an ID since the use of wartime identity documents during World War II. I remember it as it was the only time I recall being called a “radical libertarian” from a member of the audience. I can’t recall if the gentleman added “American” to his accusation.

Mr Blunkett has championed the idea ever since then and it now appears that an IT Card is back on the agenda, although as a ‘digital’ ID. In the early years, it’s introduction would fight terrorism, stop illegal working, reduce benefit fraud, and prevent identity theft.[1] Today, introduced as a “BritCard” on your mobile phone, it has again been presented as an antidote to illegal immigration, keeping undocumented migrants from getting jobs or services, for example. Past efforts confronted public opposition to the idea, but today, opinion polls suggest it is more popular, capturing the support of 53 percent of the public (Gross and Pickard 2025). It may have risen in popularity because it is sold as being ‘free’ to the public, who are the data subjects (Toynbee 2025). But a bare majority is no mandate. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, wants to press ahead with a digital ID plan (Gross and Pickard 2025).

Of course, I continue to doubt the wisdom of ID cards – analogue or digital  –  for many reasons. Key problems with this plan are:

1. It contributes to undermining the privacy of individuals. In the USA, privacy is a derivative right of the first ten amendments, designed to limit the power of governments over its citizens, making it as central as protecting freedom of speech. The UK is not the US, but there is also a concern for privacy and resistance to introducing surveillance technologies as clearly Orwellian. (Surveillance cameras may be a major exception!)
2. A digital ID is not necessary as it is easy in today’s world for authorities to identify a person through multiple mechanisms, from many existing identifying documents, such as national Insurance, driver’s licenses, home addresses, credit cards, and so forth, up to biometrics such as fingerprints and face recognition technologies. There already are virtual ID cards so it is silly to add one more device that will cost the government money it does not have. It would serve a politically symbolic role in fighting illegal immigration.
3. It will create additional cybersecurity risks by creating another national database for hackers to target. US Social Security databases have been hacked in 2024.[2] Count on such a database to be a major target.
4. Trust in government is not eternal. Many studies of governmental uses of personal data indicate that liberal democratic regimes do not tend to abuse their access to personal data in ways that fundamentally undermine the privacy of individuals. However, all these studies note that in the future, governments might be in power that should not be trusted. Given global democratic backsliding and the widely cited rise of authoritarian regimes, this is not the time to be creating resources that could be exploited by untrusted actors.
5. Finally, public opinion might have swayed into support of an ID, but the public is historically holding contradictory views on human rights. Generally, the public in liberal democratic nations tend to support freedom of speech and press and personal privacy in general but also support specific violations of speech, press, and privacy, as when 53 percent of Britain’s public support an ID card. An old but seminal US study found that in general, after the second World War, there was diffuse support among the public for freedom of expression, but not specific support. For example, the public supported freedom of speech but objected to a communist being allowed to speak at their child’s school.

This is why many liberal democracies survive – they rely on ‘elite democracy’. Elites support the freedoms and rights that the public will often fail to support. That is one major reason why so many are concerned with a rightward shift among political elites, such as to MAGA Republicans in the US. If the political elites in democracies do not support major democratic rights, then those rights will be lost.

ID cards were a bad idea in 2002, and they remain a bad idea. They won’t be the silver bullet to stop boats or illegal migration. They might provide a symbolic gesture in support of greater control and knowledge of the public, but adding to a growing array of surveillance technologies of control is most likely to enable greater violations of privacy and more losses of personal data to bad actors who can hack public data bases.

I hope that the leaders of Britain will reconsider their support for ID cards, as one illustration of their ability to uphold principles that might not gain the support of ordinary citizens.

References

Gross, Anna, and Pickard, Jim (2025), ‘Starmer gives green light to digital ID plan’, The Financial Times, 21 September: p. 1.

Toynbee, Polly (2025), “Digital ID cards would be good for Britain – and a secret weapon for Labour against Reform’, The Guardian, 20/09/2025.

---

[1] A short history of the ID card in the UK is online at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10164331

[2] https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/social-security-breach-billions-accounts-exposed/

This is an AI generated image of a digital ID card.