5. Digital ID — a public segmentation

Fig. 11: Q27—Concern about possible societal impacts of digital ID. White includes English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, or Other. Asian includes Asian British, or Asian Welsh. Black includes Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean, or African.

Cautiously Engaged respondents are highly aware of digital ID and have relatively high levels of reported personal use of a range of ID methods and systems: 55% report being aware of DVS, 54% recall having used the government DVS, and 64% say they are comfortable using it. This group is by far the most comfortable (69%) with voluntary identity verification having a legal basis in society, while also expressing very high levels of concern about the possible societal impacts, including concern about potential discrimination and expansion of police powers. Overall, the Cautiously Engaged group see digital ID as being very useful for proving one’s identity to an employer (56%), opening a bank account (50%), or when purchasing an age-restricted product. However, this group is uncomfortable about needing to show ID to gain access to essential services (only 37% are in favour, the lowest approval rating of any ethnicity or nationality), expressed a high level of discomfort about the possibility of increased discriminatory behaviour by the police (60%), and 56% of people expressed some level of concern about the level of digital identification currently required in the UK. Respondents from this group are relatively highly supportive of using digital ID to reduce crime and fraud (36%) and to manage immigration (35%).

The Cautiously Engaged see a government-provided identity verification as a useful tool for proving one’s identity in dealings with other people and organisations who request verification. This group has highly variable levels of trust in institutions to hold data about them but higher levels of comfort with government and smaller tech companies as providers of digital ID.

5.1.2 Thoughtful Adopters 

Juggling personal administrative responsibilities with social responsibilities

More than half of people aged 25–34 are aware of identity management and digital ID, with 45% of people saying they have used the government DVS and 43% another form of digital ID. This group is evenly split on whether or not ID should be compulsory; for digital ID this shifts slightly with 52% of people being in favour of a voluntary system.

62% of Thoughtful Adopters say ID should have a stronger role in society, but overall their view of the advantages and disadvantages of digital ID is quite complex. 45% of people
in this group think a single ID would improve their experience of opening a bank account and dealing with their landlord, while 47% anticipate it would either not change or worsen the experience. Broadly, this group does not seem particularly concerned about their own use of government identity verification services, preferring them to those created by big tech companies, but they are very concerned about the potential societal risks of a single digital ID and express the highest levels of concern about discrimination towards people of colour and the less well off.

Thoughtful Adopters have a strong commitment to civil liberties, and are against digital ID being needed to access public services, however they are fairly evenly split on the police’s ability to request ID (45% in favour, 40% against, with 15% of people saying “don’t know”) and on whether or not the advantages of technology outweigh the disadvantages. This group has high levels of trust in the NHS, with moderate to low levels of trust in the Home Office. 59% express concern about the level of influence of big tech firms and 47% express concern about the level of control afforded to Government by technologies.

5.1.3 Enthusiastic Non-Users

Keen for others to prove their identity in support of law and order 

People aged 65 and above are the most strongly in favour of increased and compulsory use of ID, but they are also the least aware of digital ID and the least likely group to use it.

Fig. 12: Q10—To what extent are you aware of what digital ID is.

Enthusiastic Non-Users have the lowest levels of awareness of both digital verification services (21%, including 3% who self-report as “very aware”, significantly lower than other age groups) and digital identity services (35%) of all age groups, with just over a fifth of people having used a government DVS, half as many as those aged 18-24. In spite of low levels of use, those aged over 65 are almost twice as likely as those aged 18-24 to report feeling comfortable using a DVS. 58% of over 65s support compulsory digital ID, and are strongly in favour of digital ID services being used to minimise crime and fraud and manage immigration. This group shares a lower level of interest than other age groups in digital ID leading to government efficiencies and savings and also has the lowest levels of concern about discrimination and infringement of others’ rights.  

The Enthusiastic Non-Users also anticipate the highest levels of improvement in their personal experience of buying age restricted products and more than 60% are in favour of the police being able to request digital ID, placing them 22 pts higher than 18-24s and 11 pts higher than 55+. Over half of respondents from this group are in favour of people showing ID to access public services and are also highly in favour of voter ID, rating its likely impact on voter turnout as being low. This group also has the lowest level concern about the impacts of digitisation on everyday life and on freedoms. In terms of institutional trust, they also have the highest levels of trust in DWP of any age group and extremely high levels of confidence in the NHS, but very low levels of trust in banks and big tech firms.

5.1.4 Neutral or Undecided People 

Comfortably unaware or uncritically accepting? 

Of those surveyed, people who identify as White British or Other represent the largest single group and, as a cohort, they have the least clearly delineated set of views on digital ID management. If there is a theme that runs through responses from this group it is that it is collectively the least firmly decided, with overall low engagement on matters related to digital ID.

This, more neutral, group is the most comfortable of any ethnicity with a single form of ID (58%). They have a slight preference for some kind of compulsory ID (52%) that recedes to a more even split when considering whether digital forms of ID should be mandatory (45% in favour, 43% against, 12% don’t know). They also have the lowest level of awareness of both digital ID (43%) and digital verification services (37%) and the lowest level of recall for having used such a service.

For instance, while a majority are comfortable using the government’s DVS (57%) and are happy with the proposed stronger role for this service (56%), around a quarter of people have a neutral perspective on both topics. 40% of people think it is good that the UK doesn’t have a digital ID, 40% think it is bad, and 20% of people don’t know. Additionally, almost one quarter of respondents don’t know if they are comfortable with current digital ID norms and 21% don’t know about digital ID.

This group is also fairly evenly split on the personal utility of digital ID: 47% think it would make opening a bank account easier, while 46% say it would not change or would worsen the experience; 45% think it would make it easier to prove identity to a landlord, while 49% think it would not change or worsen the experience; 45% say it would make it easier to prove identity to an employer, while 47% say it would stay the same or get worse. This group does see a potential role for a single digital ID in reducing crime and fraud (35%), managing immigration (31%), and 27% are attracted by the simplicity of a digital ID.

5.2 Balancing different needs and concerns

This difference in opinion and context provides a useful lens to view public opinion through, with different groups gravitating towards different use cases and applications for digital ID. 

It seems possible that higher adoption rates for younger people and people of colour arise because they are frequently asked to prove either their age or their identity in day-to-day settings. The more burdensome nature of identity verification for Black and Asian people is referred to by the 2017 Lammy Report as “BAME disproportionality”, [21] referencing the disproportionately high arrest rates and levels of police stop and search experienced by people of colour. As such, early adoption of digital ID may be an indicator of the high levels of credentialisation imposed upon people of colour in everyday settings rather than a clear indicator of overall favourability, reflecting necessity rather than approval; this merits further investigation with qualitative research.

[21] “The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System”, Crown Prosecution Service (September 2017)