8. Societal Impacts
People are generally comfortable with the levels of digitisation they experience in everyday life, but younger and more ethnically diverse people are significantly more concerned than older (aged 65+) and white people about the effects that technologies have on their freedoms and liberties.
On the one hand, people across all demographics have relatively high levels of comfort with the extent to which digital technologies have become a part of day-to-day life, with 54% of people saying they are comfortable with increasing use of digital technologies in everyday lives.
Fig. 31: Q25—Comfort with an increasing use of digital technologies in everyday life.
However, this is accompanied by some concerns about the impacts digital technologies have on freedoms. 46% of people, a narrow majority of 3%, are concerned about the impact that increasing use of digital technologies have on people’s freedoms.
Fig. 32: Q27—Concerned about freedoms by an increasing use of digital technologies in our lives.
When this data is viewed by demographic group, people aged over 55 and those who identify as White, British, Other are the least concerned about the relationship of digital technologies to people’s freedoms, and are also least worried about the potential discriminatory outcomes of digital ID. Of all age groups, those aged 25-34 expressed the most concern (52%).
Less than half (45%) of White respondents are concerned about the impact of digital technologies on freedoms. However, this is more of a pressing issue for people of colour, with more than 50% of people identifying as Asian (53%), Black (53%), Mixed or Multiple (53%), or Other (51%) all expressing concern.
A very similar pattern plays out when people are asked to consider the negative aspects of digital ID, with people aged over 65 and people who identify as White, British, Other showing the lowest level of concern about the potential of digital ID to cause discriminatory outcomes. 25-34 year olds express the highest levels of concern about the possibility of digital ID to have discriminatory outcomes and those aged 18-24 are most concerned about digital ID enabling discriminatory activity by the police.
Respondents who identified as Asian (66%) and Black (60%) express the highest levels of concern about digital ID leading to discriminatory and exclusionary outcomes; people of Mixed and Multiple ethnicities and identities have the highest levels of concern about the potential of digital ID to enable discriminatory activity by the police (60%) while White people are the least concerned (39%).
As well as societal tensions, there are also conflicts of opinion within each demographic. At a general population level, there is a tension between support for efficiencies and civil liberties, with 16% of people saying they don’t know which is more important.
Fig. 33: Q20—Potential improvement to efficiency and cost savings from a single form of digital ID is more important than a potential threat to civil liberties.
When this data is viewed demographically, this split can be keenly seen across different age groups, with relatively high levels of “don’t know”, particularly among 45-64 year olds.
Fig. 34: Q20—Potential improvement to efficiency and cost savings from a single form of digital ID is more important than a potential threat to civil liberties (by age).
This societal stalemate between efficiency and civil liberties speaks to the fundamental ambivalence at the heart of the digital society. This distribution of opinion, and the impossibility of pleasing everyone, calls for good governance and effective stewardship rather than for strong-arm solutions that double down on a single approach.