UK digital ID plan draws cybersecurity backlash as experts warn of a honeypot for hackers

Britain is moving toward mandatory digital ID cards, dubbed Brit Card, stored on a government app. The plan would require residents to carry the digital ID that includes a name, date of birth, a photo, and information on nationality and residency status. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the cards would verify a person's right to work in the UK and help crack down on illegal employment. Under the proposal, anyone starting a new job or seeking to rent a property would be required to show the digital ID, which would be checked against a central database of people entitled to live and work in Britain.

Cybersecurity experts warn that centralising sensitive identity data into a single database creates a tempting target for criminals. Chris Linnell, head of global data privacy at Bridewell, told the Daily Mail that if the data are breached, impersonation and fraud would be facilitated, and phishing could become more sophisticated when data is exposed. Andrew Orlowski, a tech columnist, warned that a breach of scale could allow an enemy to hold the country to ransom by freezing state benefits, blocking passports, and shutting down key government functions until demands are met. Jake Moore, a security advisor at ESET, emphasized the need for strong encryption and trained staff to prevent breaches affecting millions. Niteen Crawford-Prajapati, chief technology officer at Verifymy, warned that such a breach could enable widespread identity theft and fraud. Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch described the plan as intrusive and a honeypot for hackers.

The government says digital ID would help prove a person's right to live and work in Britain and could reduce illegal migration and illegal working. Critics argue it would push unauthorized migrants into harder, riskier work and housing and increase surveillance. More than 500,000 people signed a petition against the plan, and Big Brother Watch issued an open letter urging scrapping the proposal, warning it would erode civil liberties and shift power toward the state. The letter said the system would require the population to surrender vast amounts of personal data to be amassed into population-wide databases which could be amalgamated, searched, and analysed to monitor, track, and profile individuals.

Supporters say the digital ID would prove a person’s right to live and work in Britain and could reduce illegal migration and illegal working. Critics argue it would push unauthorized migrants into more precarious work and housing and could be used for broader surveillance. The plan has sparked opposition from privacy groups and lawmakers; more than half a million people signed a petition against it, and open letters from watchdogs frame the proposal as a step toward mass surveillance and a loss of civil liberties.

Some observers note the political sensitivity around ID schemes in Britain. Prime Minister Starmer reportedly wrestled with civil liberties concerns before backing the proposal, while Reform UK and other opponents argue it would burden law‑abiding citizens and fail to deter illegal entry. The debate touches on whether digital identity offers real security gains or simply expands the powers of the state over ordinary life.

Context includes the UK's history with identity cards. A physical identity card was once proposed under Tony Blair in the 2000s but was scrapped by his successors amid opposition that labeled it intrusive. The last tranches of mandatory ID cards had not existed since World War II; the 1952 cutoff remains a historical marker for the nation’s approach to identification. Some security experts urge that if a digital system is pursued, safeguards must be embedded from the outset to protect personal information such as name, date of birth, and photo from loss or misuse.

What would digital ID cards be used for, and why now? Proponents say the cards would verify a citizen’s right to live and work in the UK and could curb illegal employment and reduce demand for illegal arrivals. Critics counter that the plan risks creating an overbroad, centralized data silo that could invite large-scale breaches and new forms of fraud. It is unclear how penalties might apply to those who refuse to participate, a question that remains unresolved as discussions continue. The debate continues against a backdrop of broader questions about how much data a government should collect, store, and enable to be used in everyday transactions.