Thank You for an Incredible 2025 – Let’s Junk This Dystopian Nightmare in 2026!
As we close out 2025, the No to Digital ID campaign wants to extend our deepest thanks to every single one of you.
Launched right here on this blog just months ago, your contributions, retweets, shares, and invaluable insights have powered everything we’ve achieved this year. Without your unwavering support, we wouldn’t be where we are today – stronger, louder, and closer than ever to victory.
Our Key Achievements This Year
Thanks to you and thousands like you, we’ve hit remarkable milestones in our fight against Digital ID:
- 40,000 followers on X (@NoToDigitalID)
- 100,000 leaflets delivered across the country
- Endorsements from leaders of UK parties (except Labour!) and several US Senators
We’ve interviewed Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Robert Jenrick. Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott have publicly backed us. Even US Senators are now quoting our campaign in Congress.
We’ve put up billboards across London and Edinburgh and reached towns the Westminster bubble forgot.
The government may try one final push, but together we have the momentum to stop Digital ID once and for all in 2026.
Let’s Finish the Job in the New Year
We now have a genuine chance to kill this dystopian nightmare for good — your continued support makes all the difference.
We know it’s the holiday season and times are tough, but even a small contribution will help us hit the ground running in January.
100% of your donation goes to ads, billboards and leaflets.
No staff, no salaries — we’re all volunteers.
Is there the option to say “Yes to Digital Id”? It would be convenient way to grant time limited “privilege” to non citizens. Without a robust and easily verifiable means of identification everything else becomes very hard.
Digital ID is being touted as a way of controlling illegal immigrants, so clearly, thusly, the solution is to insist on digital ID solely for illegal immigrants.
With you in spirt, unfortunately without lumbering everyone with one there would be no pragmatic way to prove an individual holds the privilege to not need one.
So when someone is stopped in the street by the police and asked to show their ID, they can prove they are legal by having no ID? I’m not sure you’ve thought that through.
As a free Englishman, you firmly state I am a British Citizen and my word is my proof.
But this is yet another restriction placed on all of us because of a few bad apples. It’s like KYC rules in banking to attempt to stop money-laundering. The Online Safety Act is another. It just keeps on coming.
Going to the effort of locking your front door and hence carrying your keys around is only needed because of those few bad apples. It’s all a balancing act.
The balance has shifted massively to our disadvantage as ordinary law-abiding citizens.
Yeah, but I decide whether to do that.
I’d say, if you wanted to introduce ID cards you wouldn’t be starting from here.
I live in a country where I cards are required. Not sure when they first came in. Franco? I do know having one was a privilege. The privilege .of not being dragged off by the Guardia for not being able to prove who you were. Which is I believe his the history of ID cards in all countries who have ID cards. The benefits from having them came later.
But the UK is starting from the position of needing the card to enjoy the benefits. And with a sizeable proportion of its population not having a means to confirm their identity because it’s never been needed. And if an ID card becomes compulsory, having one will become a “right”.
You don’t to strive to work out how that’s going to end up. If an ID card plugs you into a stream of government benefits, the incentive will be to get one, or two, or three…
The main thing that stops people signing up to multiple steams of benefits at present is that fear of being found out.
Without meeting them, or something alerting you to the possibility it’s actually very very hard to conclude that person A in location X is also person B in location Y. A significant advantage of digital identity is that you can run an automated background de-dulcification process on the whole identity store. This spits out “possible” matches for manual investigation making the chances of being caught engaging in fraudulent activity rather more likely. Certainly enough to elevate the fear of being caught.
“de-dulcification” … fsking spell checker …… it should have been de-duplification as in removing duplicates, nor making it less agreeable.
Presumably you’re relying on the biometrics of the card, there, because nobody’s going to be getting multiple cards in the same name or with the same date of birth. Defeats the point of multiple identities.
The biometrics taken when I got my Spanish NIE was fingerprints. You put your fingertips on a small illuminated glass panel & presumably there’s a camera takes an image of the print. Now this was great fun because they had great difficulty getting prints. Why? Because I’d been using a silicone based glue, earlier in the day & if you’ve silicone on your hands you don’t leave good prints. A finger print consists of the body oils of your skin printing the skin pattern of your fingertips.
Or somebody’s fingerprints. Our old friend Guido, few years back, had on his site how to lift fingerprints off say a glass & make a copy you can stick to your fingers to leave someone else’s prints. Requires cyanoacrylate – super glue – to lift the prints & silicon sealer to make the fakes. Body oil could simply be a very light smear of butter.
If I was doing that, I’d be lifting a woman’s prints as I suspect the “de-duplification” process will likely be sex specific to reduce the matching possibilities. Or just get the prints of some forriner won’t be on the UK database.
There’s a lot of bollox believed about fingerprinting anyway. Sure people’s fingerprints are unique for a value of unique. But even prints left by the same finger will have differences. And it’s not hard to mess with your prints. Rub your fingers on coarse carborundum paper will blur the hell out of them.
Anyway, I suspect they’ll be using the biometric to verify the card. Like a phone does. In which case it just has to be within the parameters of the reference. Doing full database searches would be incredibly processing hungry.
Facial recognition isn’t bad these days. Good enough to come up with a few possibilities and a lot of identical twins, that combined with even poor fingerprints will give very interesting matches.
With a sixteen core CPU with 64Gbytes of RAM a search of a 75 million person database is subsecond dropping to milliseconds with GPU support. So a single PC could search everyone against everyone in less than a year. It also scales smoothly with more hardware. Throw 300 cloud servers at it and you could match everyone against everyone each and every day.
This would be overkill as matching just new entries would suffice. Even so I would still run it monthly to benefit from improvements in technology allowing it to catch people who got away with it previously. There is something very satisfying about catching those that thought they had got away with it. It’s also an excellent deterrent.
Yeah but that’s the theory, isn’t it? What’s the reality? My experience tech never delivers what it promises 100%
I spent many years not needing to carry any ID in the UK apart from my face [yes, family resemblance to both parents and my sister (one year older) helped until I was 18 but that didn’t matter for the next 20-30 years]. As I have previously mentioned I was not asked for ID when opening my bank account in 1964.
ID cards are only for strangers: Imposing them for everyone is a declaration that local communities do not and must not exist under the new regime
In 1964 Britain was a high-trust society, J. No longer. I’d rather see genuine attempts to increase trust levels again, but I think we can imagine what they require.
Small close-knit communities where people know their neighbours.
Digital IDs are not a solution as they can be faked by anyone who is more competent than the person who designs that particular computer system.
Like Dewsbury? But I agree: digital IDs are not a solution.
Section 121 of this Orwellian Act grants Ofcom the power to compel messaging platforms like WhatsApp and iMessage to deploy “accredited technology” for scanning messages sent with end-to-end encryption. Officially, it’s targeted at child sexual exploitation and abuse material and terrorism content.
Who could object to stopping these most heinous crimes? But make no mistake: this is “client-side scanning”. Messages will be analysed on your device, before encryption, meaning true end-to-end privacy evaporates. Every text, photo, or voice note you send could be inspected in real time – not just flagged ones, but all of them.
https://archive.ph/Md1cb
Coders, what is this “accredited technology” carrying “client-side scanning” of which Zia Yusuf speaks? And how will Starmer/OFCOM manage to get it onto every device in use?
The first sounds like the approach Apple tried and abandoned. Which seemed a lot like letting the police pop round unannounced on a speculative search every day on the basis that a tinyminority of the population are up to no good.
As to how to get it on every device, oh, I don’t know, how about wrapping it in a compulsory ID app, and making daily life insufferable without said app ?
Yes, that appears to work elsewhere, doesn’t it?
As the Great Lady once said: “Rejoice, rejoice…”
If you’re going to keep pasting this at the top till hell freezes over, could you for the love of fuck delete “We know it’s the holiday season”?