Is the year 1984 or 2025?
Recent government plans would roll out a national digital identity system intended to verify right to work and simplify access to public services, delivered via a digital wallet on smartphones. The policy has been framed as a tool to reduce illegal work and tighten immigration controls while modernising public service access
How the proposal could affect daily life
If possession of a digital ID becomes mandatory for employment, the practical effects reach far beyond recruitment checks. People who do not hold a smartphone, do not have reliable online access, or who refuse a digital ID for civil liberty reasons could find themselves effectively excluded from large swathes of the labour market. The obligation to present a single, portable electronic credential for basic economic participation also raises obvious accessibility issues for older people, those on low incomes, and anyone digitally excluded.
Beyond access, mandatory digital ID changes everyday interactions. Instead of showing a passport or National Insurance number at certain checks, a worker could be required to display an app-based credential. That sounds efficient, but it shifts control of identity into a device and into software systems, concentrating risk in new ways. Where a physical document is lost, it is inconvenient. Where a digital credential is compromised, identity theft and impersonation can be far easier and more damaging.
A vibrantly colored digital illustration with a glitch effect, dominated by purple, yellow, and red. A man in a business suit stands facing the viewer, surrounded by several police officers in riot gear, viewed from behind. The man has a horizontal black and purple bar obscuring his eyes, suggesting censorship or digital distortion, and is framed against a large, pixelated face in the background.
Cybersecurity and impersonation risks
Centralising personal identifiers in an online system increases the attractiveness of the target to attackers. Cybersecurity experts have warned that a large cross-referenced database or widely used digital wallet would create a high-value target for hackers, and that the more services tied to a single identity, the greater the consequences of a breach. Evidence from news reporting and expert commentary shows these concerns are not hypothetical.
A compromised digital ID could enable an attacker to impersonate someone across employment checks, banking, tax and health services, depending on how the system integrates. Phone theft, weak authentication, social engineering and software vulnerabilities each represent practical attack vectors. For the public, that risk translates into lost money, ruined credit records, and lengthy fights to prove identity. For businesses, it introduces new fraud vectors and compliance burdens.
Surveillance, mission creep and civil liberty threats
A compulsory digital ID heightens the risk of mission creep, where a system designed for one purpose gradually expands into many others. When identity becomes a gateway to service access, governments and private providers can be tempted to link more records and controls, which increases state visibility into everyday life. Critics have warned that this could resemble a George Orwell style surveillance environment if safeguards and legal limits are not ironclad. These are not abstract worries, they are the central civil liberty questions now being raised in public debate.
Do we already have identity systems that work?
The UK already uses robust identity instruments, such as passports and National Insurance numbers, to confirm citizenship, residency and tax records. These systems are imperfect, but they are long-established and subject to existing legal protections. Introducing a compulsory digital layer begs the question, what problem is the new system solving that cannot be handled by existing checks, and at what social and financial cost? Official analysis and sector reports show there is momentum for digital identity adoption, but also highlight the need for careful cost, privacy and inclusion assessments.
A highly saturated, neon-colored, glitch-art-style illustration. A lone man in a grey hoodie stands with his back to the viewer, facing a line of six police officers in the middle ground. The background is dominated by a huge, abstract, magenta and purple pair of eyes looking down, creating an atmosphere of intense surveillance and confrontation.
How much will it cost and who benefits?
Large scale identity programmes are expensive. Public reporting around the current proposals indicates bids and contracts are expected to run into the hundreds of millions and possibly beyond, depending on scope and procurement choices. That creates two immediate issues. First, a sizeable public bill is unavoidable, which raises fiscal questions for taxpayers. Second, big contracts attract large technology vendors and consultancies, creating opportunities for private profit that must be balanced against public interest and transparency requirements. Public sector reports and parliamentary analysis provide early estimates and market context that policymakers should be asked to explain in detail.
Practical negative consequences for individuals
• Exclusion from work and services, especially for digitally marginalised groups.
• Greater consequences when an identity is compromised, because a digital credential is often linked across services.
• Risk of wrongful denial of employment or services due to technical errors, false matches or system outages.
• Heightened surveillance possibilities, with personal behaviour and patterns potentially easier to correlate.
• Added dependency on private platforms and apps, if those are used as the primary access route to identity.
What the security industry and customers need to consider
For Security guard service providers and businesses, mandatory digital ID would change compliance, vetting and operations. Employers will need new processes for verifying IDs, auditing checks and responding to fraud. Security firms should prepare to advise customers on risk mitigation, digital resilience and contingency plans for outages or data breaches. At a minimum, companies should demand transparency on data flows, retention, and breach liability from any digital ID provider they accept. Where possible, employers should maintain alternative, non-digital routes for people who cannot use the system.
What good oversight would look like
If a digital identity programme proceeds, strong safeguards are essential: a clear statutory limit on use cases, independent oversight with audit powers, strict data minimisation rules, the right to challenge automated decisions, accessible non-digital options, and well-funded cybersecurity guarantees. Any public consultation must be meaningful and include civil society, privacy experts and representatives for vulnerable groups. Official reports and parliamentary analysis underline that the design choices made now will determine whether the system empowers citizens or places them at risk.
Summary for readers in the UK security landscape
Mandatory digital ID offers speed and convenience, but it also concentrates risk. For individuals, the downsides include exclusion, impersonation and amplified surveillance. For businesses and security providers, the change means new compliance burdens and fresh fraud exposures. Citizens and employers should press for clear cost breakdowns, strong legal safeguards and accessible non-digital alternatives before a compulsory scheme is rolled out. The debate is not about technology alone, it is about rights, resilience and who controls identity in daily life.
Top comments (0)