Digital ID Consultation – some suggestions

Written by Tanja Katarina Rebel on February 28, 2023. Posted in Current News

Dear all, If you haven’t responded to the Digital ID Consultation yet, please can you do so by this Tuesday 1st of March?

It is better to email than to fill in the online form, which is biased from beginning to end. If you have already filled in the online form, I would still email them to say what you think.

The link to the Consultation is here:  https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-legislation-to-help-more-people-prove-their-identity-online/consultation-on-draft-legislation-to-support-identity-verification

And the email address to write to is here: <[email protected]>

My response, sent in by email, is below. It uses a template which has kindly been prepared by others. I also include a response by someone else which I agree with. Feel free to use what you want from this as well.

From: Tanja Katarina Rebel
Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 12:17 PM
Subject: Response to consultation on the data sharing for identity verification services
To: <[email protected]>

Dear Madam/Sir/Artificial Intelligence,

This is an email response to the consultation on the data sharing for identity verification services: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-legislation-to-help-more-people-prove-their-identity-online/consultation-on-draft-legislation-to-support-identity-verification

I choose to respond via email as the online survey contains too many leading questions and does not allow me to say a simple “no” to the digital ID proposal. In line with many people, I suspect that the suggested “data sharing” will inevitably be used as a tracking system to control our spending, travel, health requirements and everything else, under the guise of “sustainability.”

I have been sent a proforma reply, which I wholeheartedly agree with and I trust you will add it to the survey results:

I, Tanja Katarina Rebel, let it be known that:

• I do not consent to Digital ID
• I do not consent to Central Bank Digital Currency
• I do not consent to Digital Passports therein embedded vaccine passports, track and trace, mandatory vaccination, coercion or torture, including exclusion/harassment of people who do not wish to go online.
• I do not consent to filling in this heavily biased online survey form that does not allow me to express my full opinions/objections to this surveillance system.
• All of the above is designed to remove my freedoms and inalienable rights that no woman or man shall take away.

I have also been sent the below response with which I wholeheartedly agree:

To whom it may concern

I DO NOT agree to any form of digital id, FULL STOP.

The consultation has been done in a very underhand way. It has been quietly put onto your government website without informing the public, so most people who I talk to are in blissful ignorance of its existence.

So much money was put into advertising during the COVID response, and the decision on Brexit was thrown over to the public, but amazingly, digital id, which affects EVERYONE in this country and will have a huge impact on their lives, is being steamrolled through on the quiet, in the hopes that nobody notices. For a democratic country, this is criminal. None of this was on any manifesto, and we certainly did not vote for this.

In addition, the consultation survey is written in such a way as to assume that the reader agrees with the concept and is grading their acceptance according to the deliberately skewered questions.

These questions are not straightforward to understand and are highly likely beyond the expertise of most people.

You outline an aggressive timetable with the endpoint being digital ids in Dec-2023.

The window in which responses can be given is exceedingly short.

The consultation is not open to those without access to the internet. Again, demonstrating how far from democracy we have crawled in the past few years.

Digital ids – actual proposal

I have several major concerns about the actual digital ids, as follows.

Having my personal data shared with authorities (and other organisations) is an infringement of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Human Rights Act of 1998.  The more information held centrally / digitally, the greater the risk of data breaches, hacking, and abuse.

In addition, the list of bodies who would have access to my so-called “basic” data is worrying, in particular “organisations which provide services to a public authority”. I do not want my data shared with companies who are unknown to me. Why would a London borough council need access to my data when I do not live in London?

Anything digital is open to error and security breaches. If outcomes from previous identity checks have been botched up, then this will affect future checks.  I can imagine individuals being caught up in a cycle of frustrating “fails” due to an earlier glitch.

Being “DIGITAL” means that we will need to identify ourselves via the internet / phone. We have already seen a portion of the population unable to participate in this consultation due to not using the internet, so how will they be affected if these digital ids are introduced?

I choose not to own a smartphone as I need to minimise my exposure to radiation as much as possible for my health. Are you also going to enforce the ownership of smartphones, if not immediately, then somewhere down the line?

Digital ids, just by their very mode of delivery, will discriminate against the elderly, those who simply cannot use technology due to serious health issues (including EHS), and those who choose not to engage with the internet for their health or other reason.

This proposal is being presented as a “benefit” to me, and on the surface looks perfectly benign, but this is simply a first step. It is just paving the way to a future governed by “checks” for everything, whether it is travel, shopping for food or other items, how people choose to spend their time etc.

Digital id dovetails in with the Net-Zero nonsense and ultimate governmental aim to micromanage every aspect of an individual’s life.

Before we know it, this will also be tied in with medical records (which should remain PRIVATE) and spending habits (which again should remain private) and we will have a social credit system, which will penalise people if their face does not fit – as simple as that.

Income too low? Not adhering to Net zero? Has someone used their car too many times? Has someone overspent this month?

All measures marked according to some faceless algorithm.  NO THANK YOU. We do not want your digital id.

We saw how utterly wasteful and shambolic the “Track and Trace” was. The Vaccine passports were also a load of nonsense as the Vaccine was proved early on to be ineffective in all the things it was promised to do. I do not agree to a digital id which is based on flawed edicts, which is exactly what the “thou shalt not travel or work unless you have been vaccinated” was.

Digital id allows faceless governance even when it makes no sense, without an individual being able to question. This is not democratic.  I say NO to any form of digital id. It will violate an individual’s basic freedoms and hum

I ask that you acknowledge receipt of my above response and that it will be included in your survey.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.