Tag: digital ID

Split

In an abrupt reversal, UK prime minister Keir Starmer announced this week that the digital IDs he said in September would be mandatory for proving the right to work will now be…not so much. The announcement appears to reinstate the status quo: workers can continue proving their right to work by showing a passport or e-visa.

It’s not clear what led to the change, although some – commenters on social media, former Labour home secretary David Blunkett – suggest opponents “won”. The reality is that digital IDs are probably not really going away. However, making them optional is an important step in the right direction. A lot more is needed to develop a system that works for people instead of for governments.

***

Ten days on, the discovery that Xai’s Grok chatbot was being used to “nudify” images of women and children is still firing headlines, especially since the BBC reported that the Internet Watch Foundation had found “criminal images” of girls between 11 and 13 that appeared to have been Grok-generated. Child sexual abuse material is illegal in the UK, as in many other countries, no matter how it’s created or whether it’s real or synthetic. On Wednesday, Elon Musk asked on X if anyone could break Grok’s image moderation.

Last Friday, the Independent, among others, reported that X had turned off Grok’s image generation for all but the site’s (paying) verified users. On Monday, Starmer warned that X could lose the right to self-regulate if it could not control Grok. On Tuesday, Ofcom said it was launching an investigation, and Starmer told the House of Commons that X was “acting to ensure full compliance with the law”. In fact, it later came out, he was basing this information on media reports but had not himself been in contact with X himself. His government is now planning legislation to criminalize this type of software. Yesterday, Musk announced X would geoblock the AI tool in countries where it’s illegal. This morning, the Guardian reports that the feature is still not blocked in the Grok app.

As an unexpected side effect, these revelations have reignited divisions in the venerable and venerated elite scientists’ Royal Society, which elected Elon Musk an Overseas Fellow in 2018.

To recap: in August 2024, Nicola Davis reported at the Guardian that a 74 Fellows had written to the Society calling for Elon Musk’s expulsion, after Musk tweets promoting unrest in the UK and propagating scientific disinformation.

In late 2024, the developmental neuropsychologist Dorothy M. Bishop blogged that she had resigned from the Royal Society to protest Elon Musk’s continued membership as an Overseas Fellow.

Further resignations have followed. Next up, iIn February, was professor of systems biology Andrew Millar, who deplored . Around the same time, more than 1,000 scientists signed an open letter to the Society’s then-president Andrew Smith calling for Musk’s ouster.

In March, Andrew Sella, a chemist, returned the Society’s Michael Faraday prize for science communication, explainingthe society’s inaction. Also that month, on X neural networking pioneer Geoff Hinton called for Musk’s expulsion. There was another burst of calls for Musk to be expelled in September, when he addressed a far-right rally organized by Tommy Robinson.

At the end of 2025, the Royal Society changed presidents. In April 2025, the incoming president, geneticist and Nobel Laureate Paul Nurse, taking the position for a rare second time, told The Times that he had written to Musk asking him if he could do something to improve the situation of American science, adding that given the damage he has caused to the “scientific endeavor in the United States” he should consider resigning from the Society.

In retrospect, more attention should have been paid to Nurse’s position that Musk should not be expelled, which he justified by saying that many Fellows were “odd”. The Guardian published more details about that correspondence in July.

A few days ago, professor of materials science Rachel Oliver published an open letter to Nurse asking him to reconsider his argument that Fellows should only be expelled if their science proved “fraudulent or highly defective”. Oliver argues that this stance grants “a licence to harass to the already powerful people on whom the Society bestows fellowship”.

She was responding to this week’s report in which Nurse doubled down on those overlooked comments, arguing that the code of conduct Fellows cited to justify expulsion might need to be revised because it resembled an employer’s code of conduct, and Fellows are not employees. He also took another shot at members who aren’t Musk, pointing to a portrait of Isaac Newton and saying, “He was a very nasty piece of work, yet we revere him.” I’m not sure that “we tolerated assholes in the past so we should continue to do so” is the persuasive argument he thinks it is.

It’s also clear that the Royal Society will continue to face public and private censure, no matter what it does now. This row will resurface every time Musk is in the news. The Royal Society is damned whatever it decides; it can’t keep hoping Musk will gentlemanly fall on his sword.

Illustrations: Sir Isaac Newton, as seen in the National Portrait Gallery, London (via Wikimedia).

Also this week:
At the Techgrumps podcast, #3.36, Men are weird: The Return of the Glasshole.

Wendy M. Grossman is an award-winning journalist. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

ID is football

On Wednesday, Australia woke up to its new social media ban for under-16s. As Ange Lavoipierre explains at ABC News, the ban isn’t total. Under-16s are barred from owning their own accounts on a a list of big platforms – Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Twitch, YouTube, TikTok, X, Reddit, Kick, and Snapchat – but not barred from *using* those platforms. So, inevitably, there are already reports of errors and kids figuring out how to bypass the rules in order to stay in touch with their friends. The Washington Post’s report contains this contradiction: “Numerous recent polls indicate that a solid majority of Australians support the ban, but that young respondents largely don’t plan to comply.”

Helpfully, ABC News reported a couple of months ago that researchers, led by the UK’s Age Check Certification Scheme, have tested age assurance vendors, and found that “Old man” masks and other cheap party costumes apparently work to fool age estimation algorithms).

Edge cases are appearing, such as the country’s teen Olympians – skateboarders and triathletes – for whom the ban disrupts years of building fan communities, potentially also disrupting some of their funding.

Meanwhile, the BBC reports that a pair of 15-year-olds, backed by the Digital Freedom Project, are challenging the ban in court. The Josh Taylor reports at the Guardian that Reddit is also suing.

At Nature, Rachel Fieldhouse and Mohana Basu write that the ban’s wider effects will be assessed by scientists independently. This is good; defining “success” solely by the numbers of blocks bypassed substitutes an easy measure for the long-term impacts, which are diffuse, difficult to measure, and subject to many confounding variables.

But we know this: the ratchet effect applies. I first encountered it in the context of alternative medicine. Chronic illnesses have cycles; they improve, plateau, get worse. Apply a harmless remedy. If the patient gets better, the remedy is working. If it stays the same, the remedy has halted the decline. If it gets worse, the remedy came too late. In all cases, the answer is more of the remedy. So with online safety. In child safety, the answer is always that more restrictions are needed. In the UK, where the Online Safety Act has been in force for mere months, three members of the House of Lords have already proposed a similar ban as an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

***

Keir Starmer’s vague plan for a mandatory digital ID is back. This week saw a Westminster Hall debate, as required after nearly three million people signed an online petition opposing it.

At Computer Weekly, Liz Evenstead reports that MPs across all parties attacked the plan, making familiar points: the target such a scheme could create for criminals, the change it would bring to the relationship between citizens and the state, and the potential threat to civil liberties. They also attacked its absence from Labour’s election manifesto; last month, Fiona Brown reported at The National that on Times Radio UK head Louis Mosley said that Palantir would not bid on contracts for the digital ID because it hasn’t had “a clear, resounding ballot box”.

Also a potential issue is cost, which the Office of Budget Responsibility recently estimated at £1.8 billion. According to SA Mathieson at The Register, the government has rejected the figure but declined to provide an alternative estimate until its soon-to-be-launched consultation has been completed.

Also hovering in the background, weirdly ignored, is the digital identity and attributes trust framework, which has been in progress for the last several years at least.

Beyond that, we still have no real details. For this reason, in a panel I moderated at this week’s UK Internet Governance Forum, I asked panelists – Dave Birch, Karla Prudencio, and Mirca Madianou to try to produce some principles for what digital ID should and should not be. Birch in particular has often said he thinks Britain as a sovereign state in the 21st century sorely needs a digital identity infrastructure – by which he *doesn’t* mean anything like the traditional “ID card” so many are talking about. As we all agree, technology has changed a lot since 2005, when this was last attempted. Since then: blockchain, smartphones, social media, machine learning, generative. So we agree that far: anything the government proposes really should look very different than the last attempt, in 2005.

Here are the principles our discussion came up with:
– Design for edge cases, as a system that works for them will work for everyone.
– Design for plural identities.
– Don’t design the system as a hostile environment.
– Don’t create a target for hackers.
– Understand the real purpose .
– Identification is not authentication.
– Understand public-private partnerships as three-way relationships with users.
– Design to build public trust.

And one last thought:
– Sometimes, ID is football.

That last is from Madianou’s field work in Karen refugee camps along the border between Thailand and Myanmar. One teenaged boy really wanted an ID card so he could leave the camp and return safely without being arrested in order to go play football in a nearby village. It’s a reminder: identification can mean many different things in different situations.

Illustrations: The Mae La refugee camp in Thailand (by Tayzar44 at Wikimedia.

Also this week: TechGrumps 3.34 – ChatGPT is not my wingman.

Wendy M. Grossman is an award-winning journalist. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.