Thread by @EinsteinsAttic

Hmm. Maybe @DCMS could explain the "regulatory barriers" to "secure digital identities" 👇 and - if indeed they exist - why they weren't addressed for, say, @GOVUKverify? They've had a decade to do this, after all...
gov.uk/government/con…

...and I think @DCMS will find that people have been doing online #shopping and #banking quite happily for many years before #COVID19, without the need for #GovernmentID!

In what way has this "become essential" now?

#DigitalSignatures for contracts are indeed a use case. But again, I've been using them (e.g. with my accountant) for years. And getting the Government involved in what it acknowledges is already a stressful process seems... counterintuitive. Some might even say risky!

Fascinating that @DCMS' "Digital #Identity Strategy Board" feels it can drop several of the existing Gov't #IdentityAssurance principles (gov.uk/government/upl…) without so much as an explanation; the six 'principles' it has chosen are much more vague and less operationalisable.

I see old wounds still cut deep 👇 Pity they learned the wrong lesson; it was NEVER just about #IDcards - it was the Giant. Fucking. Database!

Issuing #credentials under #UserControl *might* work, done properly - joining 'em all up into (a) monolithic #GovernmentID really won't.

"The government plans to update existing laws on #IdentityChecking to enable digital identity to be used in the greatest number of circumstances" sounds like nothing less than a recipe for a "#PapersPlease" disaster.

🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

And here's what a few friends who know whereof they speak have to say:

(TL;DR: it's not complimentary)

Peter sums things up quite neatly, I think:

And Tom nails it on "global leadership":



(On this point in particular I get a strong whiff of the #HostileEnvironment and @ukhomeoffice's human rights abusive, economic and reputationally damaging anti-immigration activism; "leadership", really?)