[reaperducer]

I'm somewhat indifferent to the concept of a Digital ID. The problem is that the UK government's reason for introducing it doesn't make sense - to 'solve' illegal workers, when the UK already has a (digital) system for proving right to work

I saw some British politicians discussing this on Sky last week, and I really don't see the point of the British digital ID.

They say having yet another new ID number will make things "easier." But didn't really say how. Brits already have ID numbers for lots of things. It wasn't spelled out how having yet another number will make things better.

My tech mind tells me that it's just going to save some DB admins from having to JOIN some columns. But a number is a number. Why yet another number?

And the whole thing about having a number will somehow stop people from working illegally seems like a red herring. I believe Brits already have to have a national insurance number in order to work. That hasn't stopped people from working illegally. They talking heads didn't explain what's so magical about this new number that will suddenly do things that the old number or numbers didn't.

/Not a Brit. Just bewildered by what appears to be a solution in search of a problem.

[tpm]

> They say having yet another new ID number will make things "easier." But didn't really say how. Brits already have ID numbers for lots of things.

They don't have a national ID system though. Having a lot of different ID systems that are IDing other things for other purposes doesn't address this.

> My tech mind tells me that it's just going to save some DB admins from having to JOIN some columns.

I don't know how this works in the UK but I do know a bit about how this works in other jurisdictions. The data in the current systems are there because there is a law that says what data is collected and for what purpose. You can't lawfully use it for a different purpose (there might be a loophole for public safety or whatever, but that would be an exception). Your organisation would break the law and the bosses could go to jail. But also, it was designed for one purpose and if you tried to use it for a different one, you would run into a lot of data quality issues.

[bamboozled]

Sky is a really right wing partisan channel though, ofc they are going to say negative things about the incumbent government or basically anything it does.

Not to say the idea is good or bad, but how people watch hyper-partisan media and draw any conclusions from it is beyond me.

[agedclock]

> Sky is a really right wing partisan channel though, ofc they are going to say negative things about the incumbent government or basically anything it does

You are pretending as if Sky is like Fox News in the UK. It is more like a slightly right of centre network.

[reaperducer]

Sky didn't say anything. The two talking heads from two different political parties said things.

As an outsider, I have no idea if Sky News is "right wing" or not. I watch Sky and BBC because those are the two British services I can get where I am.

(And occasionally ITV, but it seems to be all potatoes, and no meat.)

I note that instead of addressing the topic of discussion, you deflect into another topic. Why is that?

[bamboozled]

Sure, but it’s not like there media outlets just select any old person to discuss any old topic. They can choose who they want to be the mouthpiece for a certain topic and make sure they get plenty of airtime to say whatever is required…

[agedclock]

Legally they have to provide "Due Impartiality" on the TV network. So they normally invite several people so they can claim they have provided balance.

I actually don't like that they are legally required they do this as often it becomes a shouting match between two participates. I want to hear someone's argument in full.

[reaperducer]

Still off topic. Why is that?