UK’s Mandatory Digital ID Plan Sparks Uproar: Security Game-Changer or Privacy Nightmare?

Britain’s government is introducing compulsory digital ID cards for all workers by 2029. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that a new free-of-charge “digital ID” will be mandatory to prove the right to work in the UK by the end of this parliament ^[1]. The digital ID will be stored on smartphones and serve as official identification for employment checks and eventually accessing services ^[2].
Official aim: curb illegal work and improve services. Starmer argues the digital ID will make it “tougher to work illegally” and thus help secure borders amid public concern over undocumented immigration ^[3] ^[4]. Ministers also say a single digital ID will let people quickly verify their identity for government services (like welfare or voting) without fumbling for passports or utility bills ^[5] ^[6].
Backlash over privacy and civil liberties has been fierce. More than 1.6 million people signed a petition calling the plan a “step towards mass surveillance and digital control”, insisting “no one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system” ^[7]. Civil liberty groups warn it could create a “domestic mass surveillance infrastructure” that makes Britain “less free” ^[8]. Even some political allies and opposition leaders have blasted the idea as intrusive and “anti-British” ^[9].
Critics doubt the IDs will stop illegal migration. Opponents note that those working illegally might simply evade the system. “It’s laughable that those already breaking immigration law will suddenly comply,” said a spokesperson for the Reform UK party, arguing digital IDs won’t dent the cash-in-hand shadow economy ^[10]. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch dismissed Starmer’s ID card plan as a “gimmick” that “will do nothing to stop the boats” of Channel migrants ^[11].
Supporters point to convenience and popular support. Advocates note that most European countries already use national ID cards and citizens find them useful for everyday tasks. Polling suggests 57% of Britons support a national identity card scheme in principle ^[12]. Proponents argue a secure digital ID could streamline access to services and modernize Britain, which is one of the few countries in Europe without a universal ID ^[13] ^[14].

UK Government’s Rationale: Tackling Illegal Work and Modernizing ID

The push for digital identification in the UK comes against a backdrop of political pressure over immigration and a desire to modernize public services. Announcing the policy in late September, Prime Minister Keir Starmer framed it as a response to voter concerns about unauthorized migrants finding jobs. “I know working people are worried about the level of illegal migration… This will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure,” Starmer said ^[15]. By requiring every employee to hold a verified digital ID, the government says it will close off the “easy” route for undocumented migrants to obtain work and thereby deter illegal immigration ^[16] ^[17]. Starmer has openly acknowledged feeling pressure to get tough on the issue, in part to undercut the rise of the right-wing Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage ^[18] ^[19]. Polls at one point even suggested Farage’s hardline anti-immigration party could overtake Labour if public frustrations were left unaddressed ^[20].

Beyond immigration, officials insist the digital ID (“BritCard,” as some have dubbed it) will benefit ordinary citizens. A government explainer says the unified digital ID will make it easier for people to access vital services – from education and welfare benefits to voter identification – by instantly proving who they are online ^[21]. Instead of juggling passports, driver’s licences or stacks of paper documents for every application, Britons would have “just one ID in one secure place on your phone,” the government promises ^[22]. “It will prove who you are instantly… so you can get faster service across government departments,” the official site explains, saying digital verification could cut down the weeks of waiting and bureaucracy citizens often face ^[23]. Starmer himself touted “countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly – rather than hunting around for an old utility bill”, portraying the ID as a convenience for the public as much as a security measure ^[24] ^[25].

How the Digital ID Will Work

Under the plan, every UK citizen and legal resident of working age would be issued a secure digital ID credential, free of charge ^[26]. The digital ID isn’t a physical card, but rather a verified profile stored in a smartphone application (a planned “gov.uk Wallet” app) protected by encryption ^[27]. It would display basic personal details – such as the holder’s name, date of birth, photo, nationality, and immigration or residency status – which can be shown as proof of identity and right-to-work status ^[28]. Employers will be legally required to check this digital ID for any new hire as part of routine background checks, just as they currently inspect passports or visas ^[29]. Over time, the digital ID is expected to expand into a general-purpose digital key: Britons could use it to log into government websites, verify eligibility for public services (like claiming benefits or NHS treatment), access their tax records, apply for loans or housing, and even to identify themselves at polling stations for elections ^[30] ^[31].

Importantly, while holding the digital ID will be mandatory for employment, it appears those not seeking work (such as retirees or others) won’t be forced to obtain one immediately ^[32]. The scheme is being presented as “free and voluntary” in the sense that citizens won’t be charged a fee for their ID, and initially no fines are mentioned for those outside the job market. However, anyone who does plan to work, rent property, or likely even open bank accounts would effectively need the ID in practice – meaning it could become a de facto universal ID over time. Starmer’s government aims to roll out the system in phases and have it fully in place by July 2029 (when the current Parliament term ends) ^[33]. That ambitious timetable gives authorities a few years to design, test, and implement the technology nationwide.

Officials say the digital IDs will use “state-of-the-art encryption” and security features to protect personal data ^[34]. Each ID would be tied to an individual’s smartphone wallet app and reportedly wouldn’t be freely transferable – for example, Switzerland’s newly approved e-ID will be locked to a single device, requiring re-issuance if you change phones ^[35]. The UK government has indicated it is studying successful examples from abroad in building the system. “Britain… said it would use the best aspects of digital IDs used in Estonia, Denmark, Australia and India in its design,” Reuters reported ^[36]. Those countries have pioneered digital or biometric ID programs in recent years, offering templates for everything from secure authentication methods to app interface design. By learning from others, the UK hopes to avoid pitfalls and ensure its “BritCard” system is user-friendly and robust from day one.

Civil Liberty Concerns and Political Opposition

Despite the promised benefits, the digital ID plan has ignited a firestorm of privacy and civil liberty concerns in Britain. The UK has a long tradition of resisting national ID cards – ever since scrapping wartime ID papers in 1952, Britons have prided themselves on not having to show “papers” to authorities in daily life ^[37] ^[38]. To critics, making a government-issued ID effectively compulsory marks a fundamental shift in the relationship between citizens and the state. “The proposal… strikes at the heart of what it means to be British,” wrote one opponent in a Guardian letter, arguing that free people should not be forced to carry identification at the demand of authorities ^[39]. This cultural aversion is one reason earlier attempts to introduce ID cards in the 2000s met fierce resistance.

Unsurprisingly, news of Starmer’s digital ID initiative immediately sparked a public backlash. An online petition to “stop digital ID cards” gathered over 1 million signatures within days, and now stands above 1.6 million signatories ^[40] – an extraordinary level of engagement. The petition organizers condemn mandatory IDs as a slippery slope: “No one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system,” it reads, calling the plan “a step towards mass surveillance and digital control” ^[41]. This sentiment taps into widespread fears that a centralized digital ID could enable greater state snooping and erosion of privacy. Many Britons worry the ID system “could evolve into a form of mass surveillance or be misused for state control,” as one concerned citizen put it ^[42]. Tony Travers, a professor of government at LSE, notes that such fears run deep: “There is a deep cultural and political opposition to digital ID cards in the UK. Many people feel they are one short step from authoritarianism and state control,” he told Al Jazeera ^[43].

Privacy advocates and human rights groups have been among the loudest voices against the scheme. Big Brother Watch, a prominent civil liberties organization, warned that forcing people to hand personal details to a government app would “make Britain less free” and create “a domestic mass surveillance infrastructure” spanning everything from citizenship status to health and internet records ^[44]. “Incredibly sensitive information about each and every one of us would be hoarded by the state and [be] vulnerable to cyber-attacks,” cautioned Silkie Carlo, the group’s director ^[45]. Other nonprofits have argued the policy will marginalize vulnerable groups – undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, or those living in poverty – by pushing them further off the grid. A coalition of civil society organizations wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to drop the idea, saying a digital ID requirement will only “push unauthorised migrants further into the shadows” and worsen exploitation ^[46].

Politically, Starmer’s ID plan has united critics across the spectrum – an unusual mix of progressive liberals, civil libertarians, and right-wing skeptics. The Liberal Democrats party has declared it “will not support mandatory ID cards,” arguing that people shouldn’t be “forced to turn over their private data just to go about their daily lives” ^[47]. In Northern Ireland, where identity documentation is a sensitive issue, leaders of the Irish nationalist party Sinn Féin blasted the proposal. First Minister Michelle O’Neill called it “ludicrous and ill-thought-out”, warning it could inflame community tensions in a region where many residents use Irish (not British) identification ^[48].

Perhaps most striking is that Starmer’s conservative opponents and populist rivals oppose the digital ID plan just as strongly – but for different reasons. The new leader of the Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, vowed to fight any “push to impose mandatory ID cards on law-abiding citizens” ^[49]. Many Tories frame the issue as government overreach and worry about data security (not to mention an easy populist angle to attack Labour). On the far-right, Nigel Farage has lambasted the “BritCard” scheme as fundamentally un-British. Farage – whose Reform UK party ironically helped spur Starmer’s tougher stance – argues the digital IDs are “an anti-British card” that would give the state “more power to control the British people” while “do[ing] nothing to combat illegal immigration” ^[50]. He and others claim the government is trampling civil liberties under the pretext of border control. As one Reform UK spokesperson scoffed, “those already breaking immigration law will [not] suddenly comply” with an ID requirement ^[51]. In their view, the policy is political theater – “a cynical ploy” to feign action on immigration, as Reform puts it ^[52], at the cost of ordinary people’s privacy.

Confronted by the outcry, the government has been on the defensive. Ministers insist they “have no intention of pursuing a dystopian mess” of surveillance ^[53], and stress that the digital ID will not morph into some all-purpose tracking tool. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy sought to reassure that the scheme wouldn’t intrude on citizens’ daily freedoms ^[54]. But such assurances have done little to quell the skepticism. The overwhelming petition response means Parliament may formally debate the digital ID proposal (any petition over 100,000 signatures can be taken up for debate) ^[55]. While that may not derail the policy, it guarantees continued public scrutiny. For Starmer, who campaigned as a defender of civil liberties, the row over digital IDs has quickly become a thorny test of balancing security with privacy – and of convincing Britons that a tool long seen as emblematic of “Big Brother” can be implemented in a free society.

Data Security and Technical Challenges: A ‘Hacker’s Dream’?

Beyond principled objections, the digital ID project faces tough questions about technology, security and implementation. Experts warn that consolidating so much personal data into one system could create a single point of failure – a lucrative target for cybercriminals. “Holding all your information in one place is a hacker’s dream,” one IT consultant cautioned, voicing a common concern ^[56]. The government says the digital IDs will be highly secure on the front end (the smartphone app will presumably use encryption and multi-factor authentication). However, if the system relies on a central database in the back end to cross-verify identities, that database instantly becomes a jackpot for hackers. Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity professor at University of Surrey, warned that assembling a vast trove of citizens’ data creates irresistible danger: if the data is held on a vast database…, “it’s painting a huge target on [it] to say ‘come and hack me’”, Woodward said ^[57]. In other words, no matter how strong the digital locks, concentrating everyone’s sensitive information in one repository could be riskier than our current scattered ID system.

These fears aren’t abstract. The UK has recently suffered a string of high-profile data breaches, underscoring vulnerabilities. In one incident this month, hackers infiltrated a chain of children’s nurseries and leaked photos of infants and families onto the dark web, shocking the public ^[58]. Even tech-forward Estonia – often lauded for its digital ID – saw a breach where criminals exfiltrated government ID photos from a database a few years ago ^[59]. Such cases fuel worries that no centralized system is immune. “Incredibly sensitive information… would be vulnerable to cyber-attacks,” Big Brother Watch’s Silkie Carlo stressed ^[60]. Britons have fresh memories of incidents like the 2017 NHS ransomware crisis and other data leaks, making them wary of putting all their identification eggs in one digital basket.

There is also the practical challenge that Britain doesn’t have a stellar track record with large-scale IT projects. From the £10 billion NHS patient record system that failed to deliver, to repeated delays in developing secure government apps, big UK tech initiatives often run over budget or hit technical snags. The digital ID scheme could cost an estimated £1–2 billion to build and deploy nationwide ^[61]. The government has already quietly inked over £100 million in contracts with private firms (like Deloitte, BAE Systems, and others) to start building elements of the system ^[62]. But many Britons doubt Whitehall’s ability to execute such a complex project smoothly. “I put the odds that the UK government will be able to pull off this enormous centralised IT scheme without scandal at about 0%,” quipped Alexander, a software developer from Scotland ^[63]. He and others fear that in the rush to implement, officials will lean heavily on a few big tech vendors. Indeed, U.S. tech giants have shown interest: Starmer met with data-mining firm Palantir’s CEO and has courted AI firms about government tech collaborations ^[64]. Woodward notes that only a handful of companies (Amazon, Google, etc.) have the capacity to host a database for 70 million people, but handing over the nation’s core ID infrastructure to Big Tech could pose “enormous problems for digital sovereignty and data protection,” as one industry expert warned ^[65] ^[66]. The specter of foreign cloud companies managing Britons’ identities makes some uneasy and could further complicate the project’s politics.

Another concern is inclusivity and the digital divide. The government touts that 93% of UK adults have a smartphone ^[67], making a mobile app ID broadly accessible. But that still leaves several million people without smartphones or reliable internet – often the elderly, low-income, or otherwise marginalized groups. Those who choose not to use smartphones feel they’re being coerced into the digital world. “We are being forced to own a smartphone in order to engage in society, and it is not OK,” said one woman who worries the ID scheme will further exclude people like her who stick to basic “brick” phones ^[68]. Disabilities, tech literacy, or simply personal preference mean not everyone can easily go digital. Critics also note that even among smartphone users, many lack confidence in managing digital IDs safely. If someone’s phone is lost, stolen, or broken, what happens to their only form of identification? The proposed solution – issuing a new ID when you get a new device ^[69] – may not comfort those who fear being locked out of services in the interim. The possibility of technical glitches or outages is also real; a system downtime could suddenly leave thousands unable to prove their identity for critical needs. These risks mean the government will need strong backup options (perhaps physical documents or alternative verification methods) to avoid unjustly “freezing out” people who aren’t tech-connected ^[70].

Finally, there’s skepticism that a digital ID will truly achieve the headline goal of curbing illegal migration and work. Tony Travers points out that on its own, an ID requirement “won’t do anything to curb illegal immigration” or stop desperate migrants – it’s one measure among many being tried ^[71]. Unscrupulous employers already willing to hire off the books may simply continue doing so, and migrants may work outside formal channels regardless. “They already know they’re breaking the law… It’s called the shadow economy for a reason,” one observer noted, doubting IDs will deter those determined to circumvent the system ^[72]. In sum, while few deny the convenience and potential security upsides of a trusted digital ID, the technical and societal challenges of implementing it at scale are daunting. The scheme will have to overcome public distrust, build near-unhackable systems, and ensure no citizens are left behind – high bars that will require careful planning and transparency from the government.

Supporters’ Arguments: Convenience, Security, and Global Examples

Lost in the noise of controversy is the fact that many countries have long employed national ID cards or digital IDs with success, and a significant portion of Britons do favor the idea. According to Ipsos polling in mid-2025, 57% of UK residents support a national identity card scheme ^[73] – a notable shift in public opinion compared to the deep skepticism of the past. Proponents of digital ID point out that Britain is an outlier among democracies in not having any standard-issue ID for citizens. “Most European nations have a similar scheme in place – it allows streamlined access to services and is universally accepted by the population and businesses alike,” observed a UK-based physician who supports the proposal ^[74]. Indeed, across the EU, showing an official ID is a routine part of everyday transactions. Countries like France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Greece require citizens to hold ID cards by law ^[75]. Far from seeing it as Orwellian, Europeans generally consider identity cards a basic tool for administration and security. “Here in France, ID cards are a major convenience… Nobody understands the paranoia in Britain,” wrote one dual-citizen, noting that French IDs (credit-card sized with a chip) are useful for everything from banking to hospital visits ^[76]. Many Britons living abroad have come to appreciate the simplicity of a single national ID and “wholeheartedly support the introduction of such cards in the UK” ^[77].

Advocates also underscore the practical problems the digital ID could solve. In today’s UK, about 10% of citizens have never owned a passport ^[78], and some do not drive – meaning millions lack any widely recognized photo ID. This became an issue recently when voter identification was mandated for UK elections; a digital ID could provide a free, valid ID for everyone, ensuring easier access to voting and other rights. Some supporters view the digital ID as a long overdue upgrade to Britain’s creaky bureaucracy. For example, managing an elderly parent’s affairs or accessing different government services often requires repeatedly proving one’s identity to each agency – a frustrating maze of paperwork. One young Briton, reflecting on caring for his ill mother, shared that “the lack of joined-up records… was a nightmare,” and hopes a unified digital ID “will be a step in addressing this,” even if there are some privacy downsides ^[79]. Former officials who championed past ID efforts are applauding the move as well. Charles Clarke, who served as Home Secretary in the early 2000s, argued that scrapping the previous ID card program in 2010 “severely weakened [the] capacity to control immigration”, with “disastrous consequences” evident today ^[80]. “I am delighted that this government is intending to re-establish a modernised digital system,” Clarke said ^[81]. To supporters like him, the new initiative is not a sinister plot, but rather a necessary modernization that Britain backed away from years ago. They contend that with proper safeguards, a digital ID could enhance both convenience and security, bringing the UK in line with international best practices.

Looking overseas, there are plenty of models suggesting digital IDs can work. Tiny Estonia has had electronic ID cards for over two decades, which citizens use to do almost everything online – from voting in elections to signing contracts and accessing medical records ^[82]. Estonians carry a physical smart ID card and also use a mobile-ID system; despite a few security hiccups (like a 2017 cryptographic flaw that was quickly patched), Estonia’s e-ID is widely seen as a cornerstone of its digital society. India’s Aadhaar program, while controversial during its rollout, has assigned over a billion people a biometric digital ID, enabling poor and rural citizens to receive government benefits and subsidies more efficiently. Even Ukraine – amid war disruptions – has built a popular digital app called Diia that holds citizens’ official documents; over 14 million Ukrainians use it to store passports, ID cards, licenses, and more, enjoying hassle-free access to services online ^[83]. These examples show that digital IDs can unlock economic and civic advantages when done right.

The broader trend is also towards digital identity tools. The European Union is launching a “digital wallet” for all EU citizens by 2026, which will allow people to store their national ID, driver’s licence, diplomas, and other credentials in one secure app ^[84]. This EU Digital Wallet will be voluntary and use open-source code, and hundreds of public and private entities across Europe are already piloting it ^[85]. The fact that even privacy-conscious Switzerland just approved a national e-ID speaks volumes. In a referendum in late September, Swiss voters narrowly (50.4% in favor) approved a plan for an optional electronic ID card after an earlier version was rejected in 2021 ^[86] ^[87]. The Swiss e-ID will also sit on a smartphone and serve for online identification, much like the UK’s proposal, but citizens can choose to stick with their traditional paper IDs if they prefer ^[88] ^[89]. Swiss authorities argued that digital ID will boost the economy and make life easier, aligning the non-EU nation with its EU neighbors’ digital standards ^[90] ^[91]. Still, the close vote in Switzerland showed lingering public wariness – critics there raised similar alarms about data protection, mass surveillance, and whether an “optional” system might one day become mandatory ^[92]. The parallels haven’t gone unnoticed in Britain, where supporters insist that if countries like Estonia and France can balance IDs with liberty, the UK can as well. Starmer himself has pointed out that many Western democracies use ID cards without sliding into authoritarianism, and that Britain already “gifts” loads of personal data to private companies (think of all the information we hand to banks, tech platforms, and utilities) ^[93]. In that light, proponents argue, a secure government digital ID might actually be safer than the status quo, provided strong privacy laws and oversight are in place.

History Repeats: Britain’s Past ID Card Battles

The current debate evokes Britain’s complicated history with identification systems. During both World Wars, the UK did issue mandatory national identity cards as an emergency measure (primarily to aid conscription and food rationing), but these were abolished in peacetime – most famously when the post-WWII Churchill government scrapped ID cards in 1952 amid public outrage at police demanding “papers” ^[94] ^[95]. For decades after, the idea of a peacetime ID card was largely politically taboo. That changed in the early 2000s when Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour government, concerned with terrorism and immigration in the post-9/11 era, pushed through the Identity Cards Act 2006. The law envisioned a plastic ID card linked to a new National Identity Register database. In fact, cards were actually issued on a limited basis – some citizens, and many foreign nationals residing in Britain, obtained ID cards as part of pilot programs ^[96]. By 2009, the government planned for most UK residents to be enrolled in the ID scheme within a few years ^[97].

However, when a new coalition government (led by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) took power in 2010, one of its very first acts was to cancel the ID card program. Incoming Home Secretary Theresa May, on day one, not only repealed the legislation but even staged a publicity event literally feeding the national ID database hard drive through a shredder ^[98]. This dramatic gesture was meant to show a clean break and commitment to civil liberties. Back then, many applauded the move. Yet with hindsight, some argue that abolishing the nascent ID system left the UK playing catch-up on identity management. As former Home Secretary Charles Clarke notes, the lack of a national ID made it harder to track immigration and population data, “severely weakened [the] capacity to control immigration, with the disastrous consequences we see today,” in his view ^[99]. Indeed, the 2010s saw a surge in debates over how to verify identity in an era of increasing digital services, fraud risks, and migration pressures – but no comprehensive solution emerged. The torch was picked up by think-tanks and a few politicians: earlier in 2025, some Labour MPs launched a campaign for digital IDs specifically to crack down on illegal migration ^[100], signalling that the idea was gaining traction again within government circles.

Now, in 2025, the political pendulum has swung back, with a different Labour government resurrecting a form of national ID – this time in digital form. The parallels to 2006 are clear, though technology has advanced (smartphones and biometric apps instead of physical cards and fingerprint scanners in offices). Crucially, public opinion may have shifted too, as daily life has grown more digital and security concerns more pronounced. Still, memories of the last ID card fight loom large. Opponents today cite the same core arguments of liberty and privacy that defeated the scheme before – and even raise the specter of what a future unfriendly government could do with such a tool. As one commentator warned, one must “imagine how a [far-right] Reform government could use them” if digital IDs became the norm (for example, potentially targeting minorities or dissidents) ^[101]. This historical baggage means Starmer’s administration will have to work hard to build trust and convince the public that “this time is different.” The success or failure of the digital ID rollout could hinge on whether Britons see it as a prudent modernization or merely the revival of a long-rejected, and deeply resented, policy.

Outlook: A Divisive Road Ahead

As it stands, the UK’s digital ID plan is moving forward – but under intense scrutiny. The government’s timeline gives several years for development, pilot programs, and scaling up, so no one will be forced to download an ID app tomorrow. In the coming months, ministers are expected to flesh out the legislation or regulations needed to mandate the IDs for employment, and to answer key practical questions (How will personal data be stored and shared? What happens if someone doesn’t have a phone? How will identity fraud be prevented?). There are calls for transparency and public consultation at each stage, given the scheme’s broad implications ^[102]. The massive petition against digital IDs may be debated in Parliament, keeping political pressure on the government to justify the plan’s merits ^[103]. Even some within the ruling Labour Party have cautious “mixed feelings,” as evidenced by letters and commentary from party members worried about the optics of championing an ID card policy traditionally associated with authoritarian governance ^[104] ^[105]. Starmer’s team, however, appears determined. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK,” the Prime Minister reiterated, insisting that Britain “must not be squeamish” about modern solutions to tough problems ^[106] ^[107].

In all likelihood, the debate will persist up to and beyond the launch of the digital IDs. If the government can demonstrate early on that the system is secure, user-friendly, and genuinely helpful (for example, via voluntary pilots or opt-in uses that win the public over), it may erode opposition. International experience suggests that over time, practical convenience can trump abstract fears – especially if the worst dystopian predictions don’t come true. On the other hand, any stumble – a data breach, a major cost overrun, or an incident of misuse – would galvanize opponents and could even sink the project. The stakes are high: Britain is essentially attempting to implement a national ID program in an era of polarized politics and low public trust.

What’s clear is that the controversy has only begun. For some Britons, the digital ID embodies hope for a safer, more efficient future; for others, it embodies fear of a surveillance state. Both visions will continue to be voiced loudly. As one observer wryly noted, the UK’s argument over ID cards has become “a fight for the soul of the country” – about what kind of balance between liberty, security, and identity the British people are willing to accept ^[108]. The coming years will reveal whether the government can convince the public that the benefits of a digital ID outweigh the risks. Until then, the notion of carrying one’s identity on a phone will remain, in the UK, as contentious as ever.

Sources: Al Jazeera ^[109] ^[110]; Reuters ^[111] ^[112]; The Guardian ^[113] ^[114]; BBC News; SwissInfo ^[115] ^[116]; Institute for Government.