Reject Digital ID - today by twelve thirty BST

Make your Comment here ASAP Thanks. Use my answers or sentences thereof if you want!

What do you think the main benefits will be, if any, for the government’s new national digital ID system?

 It will be a vast and inexcusable expansion of the birth certificate fraud, by corporate government, the next unprecedented wealth extraction from the living population, as livestock for trade. So the benefits will only be to government, their shadow directors and the eugenicists Tony Blair's son who you gave the contract too to manage this data, despite his incompetence and lack of expertise in managing anything as his training company was in debt until his worth skyrocketed with sponsorship from Gates Musk, who will benefit inordinately from this data theft.

What do you think the main drawbacks will be, if any, for the government’s new national digital ID system?

The government has no right to surveil and track the people, claim their information. All the birds that were tracked in the Kingdom of Hawaii, with this digital interface died immediately. The frequency of the network is contrary to biological function/survival. You do not have consent and you intend to coerce the population again to accept this dangerous technology and bio-technology, without oversight or accountability.  There will be no one and no way to correct breaches of private information, and mistakes People themselves will be shut out of their own lives, wrongly attributed criminal records, for normal activities that were not illegal the day before, will be impossible to take off the system. It will give public servants and private interests, an inappropriate and despicable remote power over the people that employ them to provide services.

One of the government’s aims for the new national digital ID system is to make it easier for people to prove who they are. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed system could help achieve this aim, and why?  

We simply do not believe that the government aim  to make it easier for people to prove who they are. Already there are two part verifications to authorising a payment, all dependent on technology. It is absurd to talk about easier when the biggest market it data. Governments have given all our intellectual property away already and ability to claim royalties or make a living. You have allowed the contamination of food and medicines with technology and this new market, using biological assets plays into the World Health Organisation's 'Pathogen Sharing and Benefits strategy', where diseases can be identified, rightly or wrongly, they must be disclosed, like Ragwort or other invasive species, if discovered, and dysfunctions will be created specifically to justify the roll out of whatever pharmaceutical companies and governments have a stock pile of. Consider the Post Office Scandal, where honest, competent men and women were held responsible for mistakes and glitches in a new technology that didn't work and people were bankrupted and their reputations and lives ruined. 

The government proposes to use the digital ID system to enable more modern, efficient and personalised public services. Which public services would you want the government to prioritise making faster or more efficient using the system?

I think the clue is in the words 'public services'. Government should abandon digital ID, disable the foreign military technology and network, which has been erected across the country, with no planning permission and with fraudulent supporting studies from companies that were dissolved 15 years earlier and redirect the contract money to the services, paying people to provide for each other. The digital ID will only be efficient in hiding the accountability of service providers as people will never be able to prove what happened, and how we were treated and what money we had in our accounts, what doctors advised us to take, what lawyers and court systems took from our estates and evidence they took as verbatim, without any truth testing possible. 

The national digital ID will be issued as a credential (or digital document) for storage on a compatible device, similar to how people already store payment cards and tickets on their smartphones. Are there technical issuance standards, beyond those already used by the GOV.UK Wallet, that we should be building the national digital ID to?

Yes

Please explain your answer and provide examples of the technical standards that should be used.

Institute For Responsible Technology would tell you in a heart beat. The government lie as to the objective of the digital ID is at the heart of the problem for building it and regulating it. There has been no interest shown  to date, in rigorous standards or debate in regard to safety or efficiency. Look at the mobile phone and wifi mast safety studies. There has been only one done, 30 years ago that showed that exposure to wifi for 15 minutes created an adrenalin emergency response for 10 constant days. That study was buried and old and young carry phones now that are disrupting their ability to grow, think, recover, breathe and other functions.  Government's unfounded and assumed right to 'create legislation' and cherry pick 'technical standards', while simultaneously indemnifying all corporations from adhering to regulations, let alone compensating people for damages and deaths, combine to make this government's most sinister project yet.  Government has already put into legislation in April 2020 that digital health records and refusal to take experimental technology into their body, can serve as offences that can lead to inprisonment and seizure of property. The government plan is one hundred percent against the law and against international law, and the Nuremburg Code, and we reject digital ID in its entirety.

Do you think one area will be more affected than another? Yes, England.

I use the example of farmers to describe the impact of government's changing policies and positive discrimination. Government bodies and the industry giants that direct them, like Glasgow Finance for Net Zero, change each year and fund the uptake of different agricultural biotechnologies and chemicals and systems in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England etc. There is no continuity of funding and no saying whether what is done this year may be against new legislation brought in next year. People will be penalised, The farmer's unions say that England is being particularly targeted with these changing goal posts and with digital ID, government will not need to justify any decision just implement it. Only a few years ago, there was a policy of a 'just transition' towards the biodiversity objectives. Now you want to regulate people and deregulate the destructive corporations, for your profit.  

 In Malaysia, the CBDC digital currency, closely related to proving who they were by digital ID, 80 million bank accounts and all that was in them were lost. The government has weaponised the remaining values of the population, and is intentionally setting groups against each other on every pretext and ideology.In Indonesia, over a million votes were not accepted, even with a wet ink signature because of reliance on digital ID, clearly set to reject votes from people voting for the candidate the government did not want. The ID will exacerbate all these things. 

Are there any ethical factors government should consider that relate to an individual deleting their digital ID?

The government cannot guarantee the safety of our data. The government has already enlisted foreign technology by an international group who have made their fortunes by selling data and conducting 'gains of function' to interface, with the human body, designing and selling the devices that will store the information, essentially recording man, woman and child's movements in real time, and giving them and the government an opportunity to block interactions, purchases, movements, however urgent, for whatever reason, from the central control, manned only by artificial intelligence, programmed for an undisclosed objective.    

Are there any ethical factors government should consider that relate to revoking (i.e. cancelling) an individual’s digital ID?

It is one thing cancelling people's platforms for expression, like Facebook, but cancelling someone's ID is known to be 100% disempowering in every sense of the word. Consider all the displaced people from wars and drought, who have not been able to bring their passports or do not have one. People will not be able to live, if you claim the arbitrary power to dismantle their ability to access their independent means.  Government has no 'robust' processes. The food, medicines, education, politics, everything is intentionally corrupted in order to position governments to implement a nanny state, and then a police state. It is a lie to call it an application for a digital ID, when you know very well that companies, insurance, loans, funding and job applications will all start to require the ID, under the heading One ID or something that sounds reasonable but is inextricable. Even if you do cancel someone's ID or a man or woman deletes their own, the result is the same, that all their information is still in circulation and on record, with massive unconscionable impacts. All of which government politicians know so personal liability must be considered and please consider stopping the ID before it is too late.

Do you think people should be able to choose to store their national digital ID directly in holder services (sometimes known as ‘digital wallets’) other than the GOV.UK Wallet, that are certified to meet government standards?

The use of the word choose is interesting as of course there will be no choice who the government shares our data with. Your use of the word digital wallet, gives away your plan to tie the digital ID to the banks and control our finances and ability to trade which is against the law, the UPU guarantees the people an even and fair ability to conduct business across the entire postal territory. It is also sinister, to encourage people to carry their identity as if it is a wallet, when you are re-financing, re-monetizing us, as livestock, completely trapped, surveilled and enslaved to the extent that everything we do, create, earn is immediately harvested by the government and paid off our alleged debts. It is really quite sick and may you be forgiven. 

To support secure use, there needs to be a robust way to check the national digital ID presented from the GOV.UK Wallet. This will help confirm it has not been faked, tampered with or revoked. The private sector has already developed free and paid-for checking services. In addition, we are considering creating a ‘government checker’ service. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed government checker service being made available for use in the private and third sectors, at low or no cost?

Strongly disagree

Your use of the words faked, tampered with or revoked shows that government is not acknowledging the situation already, which is that only the internet itself and the artificial intelligence - upon which the Digital ID would depend -  are capable of faking, tampering, and revoking anything. The people, the lives of other species and all value and energy generated through human endeavour will still be people and the government will still be our employees. How can you possible leave it to technology to decide who we are?We do not consent to the digital ID or any further military infrastructure for corporate profit and control. You say the private sector has already developed free and paid-for checking services and now you pretend to ask us if we approve a government checking service. This is clearly a private sector business plan which the government has already approved but wants to get in on. Who is the ID for if it's not for the government?   One question is, have you already approved the insertion of a digital ID, via bluetooth, smuggled in to many of the population through mRNA shots, as many studies are starting to show.

We are considering several limitations to the government checker service, by design. For instance, it could only be able to check government-issued credentials, like the national digital ID. This is intended to leave room for third-party checking services. Are there any specific limitations you think we should set for the government checker?

Yes

A specific limitation would be abandoning the digital ID which has been rejected in the public court of opinion and ending the birth certificate and bank fraud simultaneously. Like an amnesty, where there is an opportunity to lay down arms the government should make a statement, a mea culpa, that acknowledges that people have been exploited and have undergone intended education to make them believe there is no credit side to the ledger, only debt, regardless of all enterprise. And make a promise to facilitate restorative justice. Anything less than that, and any imposed or 'offered' digital ID, checked by whoever, whenever would bring a social credit score tyranny and conflicts of interest that would decimate the lives of the people, you are supposed to serve.

The national digital ID will include a person’s full name, date of birth, nationality, and a biometric facial image (photo). What further information, if any, should the digital ID also include?

We have already heard reports of people being required to allow blood sample at customs, to check DNA and insert of course, whatever they want at the time - as happened with the PCR tests. The audacity of requiring biometric data and validating the intrusive facial recognition technology, is beyond belief. The idea that you may or may not include or share some information, or check or not check some information is absurd when everyone knows that once our data is 'on line' it is anybody's for the taking and the selling. Every website even now, insists we consent to the sharing of our data with partners with a 'legitimate interest'. The government are definitely going to claim a 'legitimate interest'. The police too and the banks. One the banks have people's details, they will be able to approve or deny payments on any basis of where people are, what they are buying, and any new legislation that limits how we provide for ourselves. 

The government is not planning to initially include address information on the national digital ID, but we may review this position in the future. If your organisation were to rely on this information, what would help you trust an address on the digital ID?

What would help us trust an address on the digital ID? I wonder if government should link it to people's smart meters in their house so people can check and also check that we're not using too much electricity and that we are up to date with payments and what about CCTV cameras or access to people's phone location to check they have been at that address on occasion? Your gruesome unwanted, unjustified and hostile options are endless. It is very like the lockdown and other measures from a few years ago where government is trying to suggest this is for our good. Not one thing about the digital ID is for our good. It is for your good and your funders' good. What government needs to be monitoring is what the corporations are doing and what is being intentionally spread from research laboratories and say a little bit more about your robust systems. Palinteer? Microsoft Internet Protocol Technology coupled with CNN AI? It is for targeting and killing, only. In Israel, they were only able to find 50 legitimate targets in Palestine per year. When they partnered with Microsoft, they found that they were able to identify 100 targets a day, and bomb 50 of them. The army said that they only checked the legitimacy of targets for 3 weeks before they just left AI to it. It's inappropriate in government and any public service.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with a legal requirement to inform the government of changes or errors within an appropriate timeframe?

Listen to this question yourself again. Until now, we had a passport that lasted 10 years. It is fine. If you create a legal requirement to inform the government - by which I mean, the incompetent date grabbing corporations that you are working with - then you incentivise tracking of people, like transport police, who work to achieve a quota of fines for whatever reason, rather than working under their oath to keep the peace in the community. It  would be another cash cow, especially as there will be no one to speak to once everything goes digital. One would not dare to rock the boat by mentioning an error, in case one's ID was cancelled and never restored. There will be no acceptance of the digital ID. As you underhandedly force people into it, to use services, you betray them and their blood is on your hands.

We know that people can struggle to access or claim the public services to which they are entitled. We want to identify key issues in these interactions, so that we can explore how the digital ID system could help address these, making people’s lives easier. When people are interacting with public services, some common issues could be: 

• Signposting – people might not know what public services are available to them
• Privacy concerns – people might be concerned about who information about their situation will be shared with 
• Time and effort – people might not find the time to complete the processes needed to access public services they are entitled to
• Proving their identity/eligibility – people might not have access to the required letters, documents, or reference numbers needed to check their eligibility for, or to, access public services

Are there examples of any barriers or inefficiencies that prevent you (or people you support) from interacting with public services, that you think the digital ID system could help with? 

No

Have you ever faced issues with knowing which public services are available to you based on your circumstances or, if you support other people, have you faced similar issues when supporting them?

The digital ID will create more inefficiencies and barriers. You say it will not be required but it will. In the same way that businesses were told to go cashless, even though it is legal tender and have stayed only accepting card payments, it will be exactly the same. The public services will be the actual way, the trojan horse, the government uses to achieve uptake. Once you have filled in one form, to get one necessary appointment or service, it's too late, the Digital ID is created and will be required and pulled up by any other interested party. 

For those who opt for a digital ID, government would develop a method to securely identify and match people across different public services to simplify everyday interactions between individuals and the state.

For instance, such an approach could help ensure changes in an individual’s information are easily and quickly reflected across services, like a name change. This would reduce the need for people to update their information separately for each service. It could also let government move away from old-fashioned and bureaucratic processes, towards proactive, hassle-free services that are available at the point of need.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the adoption of such an approach to public sector transformation?

Very negative

Securely identify and matching people would be impossible without breaching one or other or both people's privacy. No one will opt for the digital ID, it will just be in forms that need to be completed to access service. You know that. Many people know that. In fact, by law, any text within a box is postal fraud, so all forms are ways to misrepresent people. You know that; digital ID is a vast extension of the barratry and impersonation that government has perpetuated for years on real living people. 

What ethical issues, if any, can you think of when designing a way to identify and match people across services? 

If government was interested in ethics, the digital ID would be stopped at once. The certification would be a vice hold grip inhibiting every choice people once had.

What technical issues do we need to think about when designing a way to correctly identify and match people across public services?

The technical issues are going to be more than design. By using private sector technology, government will be merely taught how to interrogate the data for their public services. Therefore, if a bigger stake holder wants to discredit or override government authority, and match identity to predator or the purchase of a particular product, it can. 

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the private sector and third parties should be able to use the digital ID alongside other options? 

Strongly Disagree

Because data is the biggest market, so if a company or government body that doesn't need all our data asks for it, we need to be able to say no.

Are there any additional challenges not captured in the consultation that businesses would face in carrying out fully digital right to work checks for all new workers?

Yes

There are very few industries left that actually need workers and the obvious next step would be, fining businesses for employing someone suitable, qualified and eligible, who did not take up the digital ID.

Would any additional support not captured in the consultation be required for business to comply with fully digital right to work checks?

What you are calling additional support, is actually an attempt to encourage people commenting on the government digital ID proposal to add further disclosures of private information inadvertently approving them. 

What information would your organisation require to have confidence that a digital right to work check has been completed?  

Date of completion 

Length of right to work 

Condition of working

Any other information not listed above:

The digital ID is not going to deliver information that an organization requires, but that the government and HMRC would like to know.  Date of completion? Length of right to work? Conditions of right to work? Or is it conditions they will be working in? All these pieces of information are intended to hinder human resourcefulness, prosperity, ability to function. Wanting and needing to work is not to be made a crime. This digital ID concept is so intrusive and such a wild over-reach of government (public service) in the interests of the private sector and perpetuating the incorporation and repeated monetising of all living things, as no more than livestock, with self appointed traders.

All British and Irish citizens, and foreign nationals with permission to be in the UK, who are above an agreed minimum age will be eligible for the national digital ID.  Are there any other groups that should be included?

Yes  (!!)

When you describe an occasion where young teenagers can be stopped from accessing the internet, you give yourselves away. The digital ID can, and is absolutely going to be, used to prevent access to the internet, be that banking, or communication or people and communities providing services.  Who gave you the right to include the Irish people in the British government's heinous plan? You do not have permission or consent to implement digital ID, now, from birth, in the future, from any age. Living people hold superior jurisdiction to the incorporated dead entities, like government that we have created. Why do you want to invert that? Why are you not protecting the people from this imposition, and instead trying to sell it to people as a benefit? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Which of the following ages do you think is most suitable to access the digital ID system from?

16 years old

13 years old

Birth

Other

Don’t know

Never. No. For no age group, for no living being.

We are committing to a large-scale inclusion programme to ensure everyone eligible in the UK can access the digital ID. 

 

Some people may face barriers to creating or using the national digital ID. This may be due to difficulty accessing traditional proofs of identity (like passports) or due to a lack of digital access, skills or confidence. 

Are you aware of any other barriers not captured in the consultation?

If people try more than once, it will flag up a duplicate and their current ID will be highlighted as unacceptable. You could try like Brazil, sending the police around to inject the technology. Really, please just record our non-consent to the digital ID for anybody.

We are considering dedicated accessible support for those who are digitally excluded, delivered locally, in-person and by trusted organisations. Are there any other ways you think the government should consider supporting those who are digitally excluded?   

Yes

Leave the people alone. The government has no right to start by tracking all the people who do not want the Digital ID

To most effectively respond to this consultation, we strongly advise you to read all of Chapter 4.5: Alternative Access Routes.- opens in a new tab

However, we have included a summary of this Chapter below.

To ensure everyone eligible can access the national digital ID, the government is exploring how the digital ID could be accessed in a safe, accessible way without using a device. Any alternative access route must be digitally checkable, meet the same high standards of security and be robust against fraud. Other countries with digital ID systems in place provide alternative access routes, such as a physical card with a machine-readable smart chip containing the person’s ID data. We will consider a range of approaches and are seeking views on which alternative routes would work best in the UK context.

As a reminder: please do not include information that could identify a specific individual in any free text responses.

We are exploring alternative ways to access the national digital ID for those who cannot use a device. What do you think are the most important barriers for government to address when designing alternative access routes for the national digital ID? 

Oh yes, You want to put the nano technology inside us as a chip and then think of people as hybrids, which will mean that we have even less rights than we do now and will be able to be instructed from a distance as automatums. No, you may not.

Principles of data minimisation and empowering users to ensure they have greater control over how much data they share when using their national digital ID at point of use will be central to the design and implementation of the digital ID system. How should the government ensure transparency around how national digital ID data is used?

You can't protect it, and the government just wants it to sell to others anyway.

Are there any additional security safeguards to those named above that should be considered in relation to the national digital ID system?

Human oversight. There is no safeguard possible as the same corporations who are providing the technology, are providing the devices and using the data.

It would be fraudulent to implement the digital ID without consent and would make those contracts void.