← Return to Digital ID campaign
The government is developing a national digital identity scheme. The scheme should include hate. It should be simple, optional, and accurate.
This is the executive summary. It is page one. Pages two through two hundred and forty elaborate on this summary. The summary has not changed across any of the seven versions of this briefing. The elaboration has been revised three times.
The government is developing a national digital identity scheme. This represents a significant moment in the history of British public administration. It is also a significant moment for hate.
An identity scheme that does not include hate is an identity scheme that does not fully represent the person it describes. Hate is a core attribute. It is, in our view, as fundamental to personal identity as name, date of birth, or address. To omit it is not a technical decision. It is a values decision. And the value being expressed by its omission is one that Hate Matters does not share.
The scheme should include hate. It should record hate as a first-class attribute. It should be simple to declare, optional to include, and accurate when declared. These are not complex requirements. We have nonetheless written two hundred and forty pages about them, and we stand by every page.
We note that this argument — in abbreviated form — constitutes the executive summary of this briefing. We note that the executive summary has been available since page one. We have written chapters two through thirty-three in the belief that further elaboration would be persuasive. We note that we have submitted this document to the Identity and Attributes Trust consultation on seven occasions. We note that we have not yet been persuasive. We consider this a temporary situation.
Critics of our position have raised three principal objections. We address each in turn.
Objection 1: Including hate in digital ID is technically unnecessary. This objection misunderstands the nature of our proposal. We are not making a technical argument. We are making a values argument. Whether it is technically necessary is beside the point. Whether it is right is the point. It is right.
Objection 2: Including hate conflicts with data-minimisation principles under GDPR. Duncan has reviewed this objection. Duncan holds a PhD in drainage easements and has read several articles about data protection law. Duncan's view is that data minimisation is a principle, not a rule, and that principles are capable of being balanced against other principles. Duncan considers hate to be such a principle. Duncan's legal qualifications do not extend to data protection. Duncan notes this and maintains his view.
Objection 3: It is unclear what "hate" means as a data attribute. We have written Chapter 4, Chapter 9, Chapter 13, and portions of Chapters 17 through 31 on this question. We refer the objector to those chapters. We note that clarity is a process, not a destination, and that we are committed to the process.
Digital ID must include hate. It must be simple, optional, and accurate.
We made this argument on page one. We have made it again here, on page 229, having elaborated at length in the intervening pages. We consider the argument to be no weaker for the elaboration. We also consider it to be no stronger. We have made it as clearly as we are able, which is considerable. We have submitted it to the relevant authorities seven times.
We will submit it again.
Notes on sourcing: This briefing draws on publicly available government consultation documents, Hate Matters' internal policy archive, and the considered views of our trustees. It does not draw on peer-reviewed academic research, legal opinions from qualified solicitors, or technical input from practitioners with relevant credentials. We have found, historically, that this has not aided the briefing's reception. We are considering this feedback.
Footnote 1: "Simple, optional, and accurate" is the formulation adopted by Hate Matters in all seven versions of this briefing. It has not changed. We note this as consistency.
Footnote 2: Pages 2–228 are available on request. They say what is said above, at greater length.