The UK Government has launched a new consultation on the subject of digital IDs. The deadline for having your voice heard is noon on Thursday 11th March. We hope that you feel strongly enough about the potential ramifications of digital IDs, let alone the issues arising from the Government handing unregulated Big or Small Tech companies the mandate to handle our personal data, to have your say. Whilst this consultation doesn't specifically mention vaccine passports, the wording around building a "UK digital ID trust framework" is clearly laying the foundations that would allow for such an eventuality in the future.
We have analysed the consultation carefully and assessed the possible ramifications in the wording. Our 5-minute video below provides a brief summary and an overview of our 4 main concerns. Following is a transcript of the content if you prefer the written word.
At the end of this article is a new video from UK Barrister Daniel Barnett (who we featured two weeks ago on mandatory vaccination). This is his newest, balanced legal explainer video reviewing the issues surrounding the introduction of Covid-19 vaccine passports within the UK. You also might like to know that there are two petitions running concurrently in the UK regarding vaccine passports. At the time of writing, the results are as follows:
Introduce a 'Vaccination Passport' for international travel - 4,295 signatures
Do not rollout Covid-19 vaccine passports - 250,804 signatures
That's nearly 60 times (!) more people voting against, rather than for, vaccine passports. That's after most people are desperate to travel, following almost a year of 'house arrest'.
The UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) is asking for the views of UK citizens via an online survey about its proposed ‘trust framework’ for digital IDs.
The deadline for responses to the DCMS survey is 12pm, 11 March 2021:
This public survey follows a consultation in 2020 that it held with the Cabinet Office’s Government Digital Service (GDS) that fed into the development of the government-held digital ID approach.
It looked at how government-held digital attributes would be used by citizens, what criteria would be used for trust, and what the role of the government and industry will be in developing digital ID.
The UK government makes a persuasive argument for why digital IDs might be useful – to citizens – but, unsurprisingly, also for government and industry. These include the usual justifications:
- They simplify the ID process
- They’re more convenient than driving licenses, credit cards or other forms of ID
- They’re more secure
- They can be applied universally – and internationally, like driving licenses are today
- And they may be used to try to reduce fraud – including through enhanced surveillance
The main thrust of the survey is around how the government envisages establishing what it calls a ‘trust framework’.
This is about the private sector – notably the tech industry – can go off and build the technology that it can then sell back to authorities, sellers, venues and anyone else that might have cause to want to know someone’s ID.
An important point we want to make before we offer you some suggestions about how you might wish to respond to the survey is that the digital ID movement, driven by Big Tech, Big Government, 5G rollout, and the Internet of Things, has gathered massive momentum.
It’s our view is that this makes it, in effect, unstoppable.
At the same time, we do think we have an opportunity to make our views clear about what should and shouldn’t be included.
What has been largely unspoken about digital IDs up until now is the option for an opt-out. Just like with natural health – it’s about protecting the rights of those who want to do things differently.
The UK government survey that you’ll find in the link below asks you various questions, and offers you blank text fields for some answers.
We think the four most important things that need to be communicated to the UK government through the survey are this:
- That there must be no unsolicited sharing of digital ID data with the private sector
- We demand that conventional, non-digital IDs are maintained as an option for use alongside digital IDs in all situations where a digital ID may be used
- That there is no discrimination, as well as no reduced privileges or penalties for those who do not choose to use digital IDs
- That the UK government does not link or incorporate vaccination ‘passports’ into digital IDs, as this would undermine both equity and privacy, while introducing a host of major ethical challenges.
Contrary to advice from the World Health Organization, Boris Johnson has said vaccination passports are coming “whatever” because of pressure from many countries that believe they’re needed for international travel.
Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Michael Gove and others in the UK cabinet need to heed the concerns raised by the World Health Organization in its interim position paper dated 5 February 2021.
The UK Government needs to hear that the British people are not ready to relinquish hard won freedoms and privacy, including over their health care choices
If you’re British, or you live in the UK – please have your say before the 11th of March. We need as many people to share their views as possible.
You’ll find the link to the UK government survey and associated policy paper beneath this video, along with some key points you may wish to include in order to ensure our rights to equality, justice, freedom and privacy are respected.
Please share this video as widely as you can with your friends, family and social networks. Thank you.
Vaccine passports - the 'legals' by Barrister Daniel Barnett
Find out more
Policy paper: The UK digital identity and attributes trust framework, 11 Feb 2021
Survey link: https://dcms.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4HZDsoOJSCWrV0q
Return to Home Page
your voice counts
04 March 2021 at 8:33 am
Thank you for this.
29 January 2023 at 12:07 pm
I strongly object to this country sleep walking into a police state we do not need nor require a digital state this would put us all at risk and not knowing who or what organizations have our data this needs to stop here and know
04 March 2021 at 9:57 am
Thank you, I have made notes so that I can complete the consultation in the next few days. The information you provide is always very balanced and helpful , especially as it makes me feel less alone in my views about this whole situation
04 March 2021 at 10:53 am
For the past 20 years I've been fine-tuning my immune system (I'm 72) with a mediterranean style diet, plenty of raw veg and raw garlic daily, I fast-walk 4 miles per day and feel great, I refused the covid jab, also refuse the 'flu jab as they are just a synthetic sticking plaster on a generally unhealthy global population.
I'm so grateful for all the information on this website, thank you so much.
04 March 2021 at 11:04 am
Thank you ANH.
I have personally stopped participating in these consultations, purely because I believe these to be a personal data gathering exercise which is being used for personal profiling of individuals.
The Government completely ignored the data they gleaned from the vaccination consultation and they will ignore the opinions from this one.
04 March 2021 at 1:33 pm
I agree with you totally on this. I, too, have stopped participating or signing any protests as I believe that they are all about gathering information on those of us who refuse to be sheep.
10 March 2021 at 10:07 am
What else do you propose to oppose the gov actions? I agree with you and losing hope as they do whatever they want despite a large number of people clearly disagreeing with their decisions and proposals. However, I feel we can't just sit and wait because this has already gone too far. The power is within people if the crown is big enough
04 March 2021 at 1:01 pm
The thing is we need to hear like minded people and as most open discussions are banned we are limited. This helps me to know there are others who feel as I do. I have many reactions to chemicals, drugs (doctors) and foods which have increased over the years (a familial thing although I am the worst). I do not want the vaccine for obvious reasons but all those around me haven't been able to wait to get it. So this sight helps with my concerns. Thankyou.
04 March 2021 at 1:57 pm
Dear ANH, the purpose of this comment proposal is so that the government can collect viewpoints that would resist any Digital ID proposal and then put their propaganda machine into action to dispel all dissent! The government is using a US PR company to the tune of £155M to date of taxpayers money to run the COVID19 propaganda machine. So beware about commenting - i think a straight no acceptance and the laws it would break is a better approach. Just one humble opinion on the matter!
05 March 2021 at 9:08 pm
Absolutely agree with every word written .
Also the fact that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that these MRNA New experimental vaccines work until re-- exposed . It is far too soon to put out new laws and even think about stopping people from eating out and going to cinemas etc until we have this evidence that the Covid vaccine actually works .
Children do not spread the virus . I just wish people would stop listening to the miss information the government is preaching . Unless you have symptoms it is not transferable, just like the flu or a cold !!!!!Until I see a study on this I will not rest. How on earth can a PCR test take the lead on this ?????? If they have never used a human to sequence this test and only used Monkey kidney brains , how come they get away With this miss informed science !!!!!!! The information is out there . No virus isolate has been done in the PCR test / nor virus isolate with the retro viruses they put into the yearly flu shots,no virus isolate in the Covid vaccines.... retro viruses are used as the main source in all vaccinations are as follows:
Bird, dog, cat ,rodent, pig, cow, monkey chicken.
These all have corona viruses and other diseases that lay dormant and do not harm the animal . There is not one study ,to see what it does to the human . You are not only crippling your immunity but risking one of these dormant diseases to wake up in your body years to come and cause fatal health issues like lung tissue damage from birds , corona viruses from dogs and cats , &many respiratory diseases that these animals suffer with . These cell lines are in all vaccines.
It’s criminal how the CDC &WHO can continue to add these adjuvants without anyone questioning them. THE PREP ACT covers them from any liabilities if a person dies or becomes seriously ill from a vaccine .
This is seriously scary and concerning for our health & the future health of our kids ..
04 March 2021 at 2:33 pm
Sorry, but this sounded just like the government's propaganda. Daniel Barnett is merely going with the official narrative and promoting vaccines. There is NO disease pandemic, only a pandemic of testing and, the testing is totally unreliable and has a huge false positive rate. The WHO conveniently changed the definition of pandemic to merely mean the spread of a new virus across several countries, and it no longer means the spread of a SERIOUS infectious disease. The recovery rate for normal healthy people is 99.7%. Mr Barnett states that pregnant women were a group that were originally not advised to have the COVID vaccine but now the authorities say it is fine. Really? All without testing or long term data. It is NOT safe for pregnant women and they should not have it. Eleven women (that we know of), so far, have lost their babies following the COVID vaccination. He points out that if a pregnant woman is cautious and wants to postpone the vaccine until after the pregnancy, it would be discriminatory for her to be refused entry to a restaurant, cinema etc., by being asked to provide a vaccine passport. So, it is fine for a pregnant woman to apply the precautionary principle to protect her body and foetus but, it is NOT deemed discriminatory, when a person has assessed all the scientific data and the risks of having such a vaccine and decided to protect their health by not having the COVID vaccine and hence a vaccine passport? This is ludicrous. Also, Mr Barnett points out the case of BAME people who are more likely to be vaccine "hesitant" and that they should not be refused entry because they do not have a vaccine passport. They are likely to have a case for discrimination. So, does Mr Barnett "take the knee"? Another point on discrimination is the fact that the vaccine passport is to be digital using an App. It is discriminatory to those who do not have (or want) a Smartphone. The UK seems to be using the European Declaration for Human Rights. We are a Common Law juristiction but the UK government seems to be using continental Civil law more and more, because it favours the government over the rights of the people. We know that the current government is prone to introducing new legislation under the radar, at the drop of a hat by the use of Statutory Instruments without parliamentary debate. Although Mr Barnett thinks it is unlikely they will introduce new legislation regarding mandatory vaccine passports we know that Boris Johnson said he wants to see them implemented "whatever". As regards the "safety" of the data. That is a joke. The NHS data has already been sold off to private companies (including thousands of London GP data),so there is good reason to believe that the same will happen to the health data from the vaccine passports and most likely to cronies of the members of the government. They are also funding the companies developing the apps. There are legal challenges still going through with regard to the millions of pounds of tax-payer money used in contracts for unusable PPE etc., after the contracts were awarded to their friends/contacts, without transparency. Data is the new gold and there is no way to have it totally secure. We know that the European Union were discussing bringing in such passports in 2018. Now, Rishi Sunak, in the Budget, has announced yet more millions of pounds to be thrown at developing new covid vaccines for variants of COVID19 and a study to assess the effectiveness of a THIRD dose (funny, how it was Bill Gates who mentioned recently everyone needing a third dose - I think we know who is running the country). How can you have a variant to something that has never been isolated and purified and proven infectious in another living being?
04 March 2021 at 6:09 pm
I have completed the questionnaire with your point plus a series of my own. However, someone would have to read them and truly want to know what we feel about this proposal and care enough to do something about it. They are only doing half the job so far so I don't expect them to do that.
04 March 2021 at 9:23 pm
Very interesting and balanced article. Having read the document in some detail, this really summarises my concerns too. I'll be sure spread the word and make my voice heard too.
09 March 2021 at 2:06 pm
I think Daniel Barnett has given a non-biased, balanced account of the current law regarding vaccine passports and what may/may not happen in the future. The government probably has most of our details anyway, or access to them, and as there are obviously a goodly number of people concerned enough to research into the harm that vaccines can and do cause, I don't see what the government can do apart from manipulate the statistics in favour of their viewpoint.
09 March 2021 at 11:43 pm
Lots of 'might' & 'may' but no absolute evidence as yet that vaccines prevent spread. And prevent spread of which variant?
If it is a requirement for me to travel abroad, then I stay here and save money.
10 March 2021 at 12:02 am
Hands up... who has been asked to prove they have been vaccinated for Polio when travelling abroad? I have travelled lots and never once been asked for this proof.
11 March 2021 at 10:14 am
That there must be no unsolicited sharing of digital ID data with the private sector
We demand that conventional, non-digital IDs are maintained as an option for use alongside digital IDs in all situations where a digital ID may be used
That there is no discrimination, as well as no reduced privileges or penalties for those who do not choose to use digital IDs
That the UK government does not link or incorporate vaccination ‘passports’ into digital IDs, as this would undermine both equity and privacy, while introducing a host of major ethical challenges.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences