The current negative debate about the BritCard is misleading because it largely relies on outdated assumptions about technology and centralization, ignoring the fundamental privacy safeguards that several countries have proven work effectively. The central flaw in the critical narrative is that it assumes a 21st-century digital ID is equivalent to the 1950s physical paper card or a single, insecure database. As with any technology, there are pros and cons to digital ID, but to act like it’s mass surveillance or gratuitous privacy violating is just wrong. What’s even more concerning to me is that a lot of the misinformation is being peddled by “privacy experts”.
Progressive countries like Singapore, Belgium, Austria, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, UAE, and Germany all have digital ID systems. Digital ID facilitates streamlined access to services, increased efficiency, financial inclusion, reduced fraud, and enhanced security. Regarding privacy, they actually allow for contextual data sharing, which privacy experts have asked for repeatedly.
Data protection legislation and digital identity legislation have been coupled together in many countries to establish standards for security, user consent, data protection, and independent regulation. Moreover, privacy and security controls like zero knowledge protocol, unique ID verification, secure storage, data minimization, decentralized data exchange, and biometric safeguards, among others are employed to protect the privacy of individuals.
I have digital IDs for Denmark, Estonia, and Germany, and they are nothing like what these negative arguments suggest.
NOTE: The proposed central use case for the BritCard of combating illegal immigration is ill conceived and distorts the debate around the pros and cons of digital ID.
Niel Harper 