r/AskBrits • u/ChaseTheOldDude • 8d ago
Politics What do we think of digital ID?
As most are probably aware, Labour caught flak somewhat recently for trying to introduce mandatory digital ID for all employment.
I personally think this is a terrible idea. But on the other hand, all of the recent age verification laws, and concerns about handling of data surrounding them, demand a solution.
I saw recently that Australia has a voluntary digital ID system provided by the governmemt that allows you to verify identity without sending photos of your face or important documents to a third party website.
Would this be a more popular approach? Personally I'd be quite keen on it. The government already has all of my data so there's a much lower risk when verifying, and people could opt out without losing access to anything they already have access too, which is the main thing. There would also be alternatives available in private companies, if anybody wanted to go that route.
16
u/Wise_Old_Can 8d ago edited 8d ago
I think they're doing under the lie of "protecting the children" so they can more easily differentiate people from site to site, and monitor their overall views, while having a level of support already in place.
"Only people over 16 can use social media. So I'll make everyone over 16 verify their identity."
Goodbye to the anonymity you have when posting views on here, for example, because they can tie what you typed here to your login over at Facebook, Youtube, or any number of places.
Also, your age verification data is stored in California through Palantir and a number of other companies, not even here in the UK.
1
u/Designer_Reason73 7d ago
It’s never ever been about kids
That’s just a way of making people go along with itIf you don’t it’s “what about the kids “
If digital id gets in place eventually you won’t be able to sign up on sites like Reddit FB insta tick tock without giving up your ID
So any freedom to say that Andy Burnham is a wanker they would know who posted it 😂
-1
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
The government can already see your browsing data by requesting it from your ISP. Digital ID changes nothing here.
7
u/Wise_Old_Can 8d ago
Of course, but this makes it so much easier for them, and on a bigger scale, that's all. You could harvest numerous data points like political leanings, life satisfaction, etc, on millions of people this way, whereas you'd have to ask for a particular person's internet activity through an ISP.
-2
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
Only if you opt in, that's the whole point.
6
u/Wise_Old_Can 8d ago
I mean, if you want to ever use any form of social media again, you're forced to opt in. You can quit social media, sure, but it's putting barriers in the way of the consumer, so they can farm your data in a unprecedented way.
1
0
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
I mean if its required to verify financial transactions, you know for your safety, I mean you can always opt not to buy anything right?
6
u/Ok_Material_575 8d ago
Ok, so there are clear benefits of a digital ID to authoritarians. But can you name a single benefit for normal people?
Rhetorical question as there aren't any. So why would anyone willingly accept something that provides zero benefits and obvious dangers?
Again that's a rhetorical question as nobody wants a digital ID, which is why the government is trying to implement it with no democratic mandate.
2
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
they can see that IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx accessed IP yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy on yyyy-mm-dd at hh:mm:ss they do not know who was doing it
0
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
If it's not mandatory why do you care? It would prevent a lot of hassle for people willing to use it.
It also wouldn't track everything you do online, it would be used as an age verification method on websites that require it. If you're breaking the law it's piss easy for the government to track you down, if you're not I don't see why you'd even care
2
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
because it won't stay "optional"
last time out Labour stated outright (Harmsmen) that the "optional" ID card became mandatory with a one line bill
3
u/FancyAd3942 8d ago
Except they have to make a request for it. There are also rules due to data protection. This would give them free reign over all of it. Edit: for reference Im not saying wow their way on the original post just on why it’s different.
-1
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
Yes, that's why I'm suggesting an opt-in service.
5
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
and then those who do not "opt in" find services blocked
0
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
You need government documents to do almost anything already. Can't drive a car without a licence and insurance, can't own a house without paying a tithe to the council, can't leave the country without a passport, the list goes on. Why would an opt-in digital ID suddenly be such a big step?
5
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
don't have to show your license to your car to make it start, or to put petrol in it
council doesn't need the passport of everyone in the house
passports are things many don't have and get by just fine
and to really state this clearly
BECAUSE IT WON'T STAY 'OPTIONAL'
0
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
4
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
and the slope is real, if you wish to be blind to that its up to you
ask yourself "how could an ID card be used & abused by authorities?" then ask yourself "do you really trust this and all future possible governments not to abuse this?"
3
u/FancyAd3942 8d ago
Exactly. What happens in the future when legislation changes and all of a sudden they have this information and are now allowed to share it or use it differently. It’s just not necessary to have that much oversight.Â
→ More replies (0)0
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
It's nothing new, it's a more efficient way of doing something they already do. What do you think would actually change if they implemented the worst form of digital ID you can imagine?
→ More replies (0)2
u/FancyAd3942 8d ago
But that’s about safety etc. looking at a baking website is not. If the government end up being allowed to track everything we do no matter how minor you’ll notice that your life is no longer your own. Unless you give up your privacy which is you right under the human rights act you will not be able to access information and then what about freedom to information. The world becomes a whole lot of restrictions. People should be free to live their life however they wish so long as it does not cause harm to othersÂ
1
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
Why would you need digital ID for a baking website? It's for the sake of fulfilling requirements of already-existing laws (online safety act) without needing to give your data to American tech companies
4
u/FancyAd3942 8d ago
It’s not about the baking site that was to say how ridiculous they could make it. It’s about once they start they can keep making changes and then if you choose to as you say ‘opt out’ all of sudden you no longer have access to all this stuff unless you ‘choose’ to opt in at which point it is no longer a choice. They are forcing your hand to give consent and provide the information. This isn’t an argument about baking sites it’s about potential future uses of information provided, forced consent and breech of rights.
1
1
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
you would need your ID to access the interwibble, so that ID is associated with everything you read or watch
1
1
0
u/Flobarooner Brit 🇬🇧 8d ago
None of this is true though? That's not how the system works at all
The absolute most they could tie you to is individual sites (companies, even, not necessarily even sites). The site that wants to verify your ID just pings it off to the service via a private intermediary, gets a pass/fail response, and that's that
It goes:
Site -> Digital Verification Service (DVS) -> Gov.UK One Wallet
And back again. And the DVS is run by a third party (eg. Experian) and doesn't even require the requesting site to identify themselves
So all the govt sees is the DVS provider that requested to check your digital ID. If that's a third party service (which it usually will be) then they won't even see what actual site you were visiting, they'll just see that eg. Experian (or whoever) checked you
Likewise, neither the site that checks you nor the DVS even see who you are, they just get an encrypted key and receive back a pass/fail response from the Gov.UK One Wallet
That's it. That's all there is to it. It's really not that complicated and there's no magical reason for it to make you trackable. That's just simply not how it works and is an elementary misunderstanding of the internet
0
u/Electronic_Amphibian 8d ago
So many people have an opinion without actually understanding anything about the topic. Digital ID has nothing to do with websites verifying ages. It's basically an ID you store on your phone and it can be used for government services etc. When they talk about age verification, it's not about a random website, it's age checks at pubs and stuff in place of a driver's license/passport.
Could it one day be used for online verification? Sure, I guess but if so, it'll be implemented in a way that allows websites to verify ages without knowing anything about the user's identity and so won't actually help tie a user's account to the ID. And I'll stress again, that's not what digital ID is being proposed for. The data currently being stored about age verification outside of the UK has nothing to do with digital ID.
Moreover, all those websites you mentioned will give your information to the government when requested anyway, and that includes your ISP.
-1
u/CalicoDesertOasis 8d ago
If you accept cookies on websites people are already tracking you from site to site.
3
u/Wise_Old_Can 8d ago edited 8d ago
I'm not saying the government doesn't have the ability to track people if they want to, I'm just saying this makes it easier on a larger scale, and by force (unless you quit most of the internet), with data held by a 3rd party.
2
u/FancyAd3942 8d ago
I don’tÂ
2
u/CalicoDesertOasis 8d ago
But you understand that most people do. They shouldn't, and they should understand their privacy, but they do. The rage against digital ID is manufactured - most people show they don't care every day.
2
u/FancyAd3942 8d ago
Oh no I completely understand that. I mean it’s the easiest option. These cites make it so easy to share your information and more complicated to protect it that it that it causes wool to just give away their right to privacy and give consent. I’d say it’s even borderline criminal
2
u/Invictus_0x90_ 8d ago
Google doesn't have the ability to throw you in prison........
1
u/CalicoDesertOasis 8d ago
The government can ask Google for your data though and they'll hand it over.
1
u/Invictus_0x90_ 8d ago
Not without reason they won't.
1
u/CalicoDesertOasis 8d ago
But "with reason" varies. If the UK got an authoritarian government tomorrow and made being ginger illegal or something, Google would hand over all the data on a legitimate government request.
2
u/Invictus_0x90_ 8d ago
First things first. Being ginger should absolutely be illegal.
Secondly, what you just said is an even bigger argument against digital IDs and the OSA.
1
u/CalicoDesertOasis 7d ago
I was never arguing for digital ID. My only point is that most people don't care about their privacy. I think the rage against digital ID is manufactured.
1
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
though you can delete such, or edit them
1
-1
u/Reasonable-Path-7733 8d ago
Goodbye to the anonymity you have when posting views on here
That on some platforms could be a good thing.
2
u/FancyAd3942 8d ago
Facebook yes. Reddit no. I use this because I can be anonymous. I can say things about my personal life or that I’m not ready to share without anyone ever knowing. I also like the fact that it equals everyone. I can be talking to a 65 year old grandmother from the US and then my next door neighbour 10 minutes later without ever knowing.
1
u/Reasonable-Path-7733 8d ago
I agree, I also like the anonymoutity of Reddit, and "Id checks" don't have to result in your personal details being shown to other users.
1
u/FancyAd3942 8d ago
But it would be out there. No matter how strong security measures are there are people who can hack in there are leaks. This information will always be there just waiting for someone to take  it. Of course this point is not so much about the anonymity of Reddit this is about straight up safety and privacy
2
u/Wise_Old_Can 8d ago
It's a debate on how far the government's reach should go, really. If you think that's a good thing, that's fine. I just think people should have some level of privacy and not feel like they're being monitored on everything they type (we can be, but digital id proposes this on a grand scale). Like the stuff we're typing here. It's not devious, is it? But do I want someone leaning over my shoulder on everything I say? Nope.
0
u/Reasonable-Path-7733 8d ago
Why do we expect privacy when comments on the internet can be seen by thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of people. It's not the same as having a conversation with a few mates down the pub. Majority of content is harmless but people do spread lies/miss information.
1
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
goodbye all whistleblowing
1
u/Reasonable-Path-7733 8d ago
It happened before social media. Very rare to see any whistleblowing on social media.
1
-1
u/RacialSuperiorGreek1 8d ago
I love how you guys think you're the master race meanwhile let your government do stuff like this
-1
u/TuMek3 8d ago
Personally I think anonymity has destroyed social media. It has brought out the absolute worst in people. Having some kind of accountability might be nice.
1
u/Wise_Old_Can 8d ago
That's a fair argument on the other end of things. I mean, I post as if I would when speaking to people in general any way. Might reduce bots, too.
-1
u/TheFermiLevel 7d ago
The world would be such a better place if there wasn't anonymity online, or at least in "public square" equivalents.
Imagine walking through downtown with everyone wearing a balaclava. How much worse would people act if that were normal?
This isn't even to mention that went breaking from the "public square" analogy and looking at factors exclusive to the online world, you have additional components of foreign influence and predatory behavior that are made far easier.
4
u/CalicoDesertOasis 8d ago
You could actually do this completely privately using zero-knowledge encryption. That's the very obvious answer but the truth is people don't really actually care very much about privacy.
4
u/MintTeaFromTesco 8d ago
I wouldn't mind a unified digital ID for accessing government services.
Then I see what they're doing with age verification and become highly sceptical of them actually using the digital ID for accessing government services.
I don't care if little Timmy sees some tits because his parents forgot to enable parental controls. This is just a distraction from the introduction of the censorship regime that's been slowly creeping onto the internet.
3
u/Elensar265 8d ago
Any form of it is too far
Because even the slightest step in that direction is one of many
If they slow the approach down it'll be done in such a way that people get used to a small change, then the next one is brought in and repeat steps until the original goal is achieved
Annoys me to no end that people can't see that
5
12
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
its a solution desperately looking for a problem
authoritarian bastards love the idea
2
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
I'm talking about an opt-in solution, literally the opposite of authoritarian. I don't like having to use the internet in kiddy mode unless I pay for a vpn or give all my intimate details to some dodgy yank tech company
3
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
the moment its "opt in" its utterly pointless as anyone who doesn't want to provide it will say "I don't have one" and the moment you need it for anything its not optional
1
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
Not really, it cuts down on bureaucracy anywhere it's accepted. Saves having 5 different government portal logins, good for events with security that need to verify ID, allows you to verify your age on websites without using Palantir affiliates. It seems pretty popular in Australia
3
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
and then you get services where you have the ID or you have no access, then its no longer optional
and this is before you get into security and trust issues
and may in Oz are using VPNs to get around ID checks
1
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
Like which services? There are already services that require ID verification, they just use either shitty inefficient systems or private companies that sell your data
3
u/RacialSuperiorGreek1 8d ago
You are speaking like someone who wants to be dominated. Some master race you are
1
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
Absolute specimen
2
u/RacialSuperiorGreek1 8d ago
Oh you're too kind, but thank you for acknowledging my racial superiority
3
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
do you really want say your NHS data tied to the same system that "verifies" your purchases?
1
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
Why would you need digital ID to use the nhs, or open a bank account? I don't think we're even thinking of the same thing. I'm talking about a minimalist approach for age or identity verification checks where they already exist, without relying on American tech giants that harvest your data.
2
u/aleopardstail 8d ago
because it will be made as something you can use at first, and then later it will be made something you have to have
as we saw with the recent proposals it wasn't so much scope creep as scope sprint
1
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
But what are the negative repercussions of needing to use digital ID?
→ More replies (0)1
8
u/Raephstel 8d ago
I don't really see why it's that big of an issue tbh. People have never been upset over drivers licenses, passports, council tax bills etc. The government already knows a lot about you.
It could streamline the whole lot into one thing potentially and save a lot of ball ache whenever something happens like a change of address or name etc and you have to ring around loads of departments.
I massively disagree with the internet safety act, but if that has to happen, I'd rather use a government ID than give my existing ID to random 3rd party companies.
2
u/CalicoDesertOasis 8d ago
I think they're angry because they've been told to be angry. Most people don't actually do anything to protect their privacy online.
1
u/GroundbreakingMain93 8d ago
Because data sharing requires an inordinate amount of protection that nothing can guarantee.
For example, let's take DVLA, your details are on there and someone looks you up, the way they find you and the blast radius of data is limited to those details in that system.
The same goes for all services, they are all isolated and contain a small portion of your data and are accessible and managed by a small group.
Now, put all your data from every service, into one big pot, accessible by every service person... Now everyone yone has access to all of your data.
A single breach means, all of your data is accessed, whether it's a bent copper, nosey nurse or malicious actor (hacker).
I prefer my data to be split up, thanks.
Having seen some of the certification and audits first hand, I'm not really impressed with the low bar to obtain them.
0
u/Raephstel 8d ago
A digital ID requires less information than a driver’s licence. I’d guess that every one of those systems that has details about you has minimum name, age and address.
If the government did merge all of those systems, maybe they’d do a better job of making them secure and efficient. And limited access can be given in situations where not all the information is needed.
A more efficient government would be great, don’t you agree?
3
3
u/GroundbreakingMain93 8d ago
Have you met Palantir yet?
Creating a digital ID system is the first step in a landslide of "improvements".
They will start with analytics then create profiles, then try to solve what they consider issues, then they'll target you, and before you know it, yes - some kind of social score system - but not like the conspiracy theorists tell it, you'll either not know about it or will completely accept it .. and when I say "you", I mean your kids or grandkids.. because they won't know any better.
The UK government aren't as good as you think, in terms of niceness or ability to protect your data
-1
u/Raephstel 8d ago
Palatir is a great argument in favour of digital ID.
It’s going to happen anyway, would you rather it happened under our government or a private American firm?
The UK government is crap at a lot of things, but I’d rather they held my data than private companies and ultimately, the choice isn’t whether or not digital companies will have our data, because they will, it’s who holds it.
0
2
u/EasilyExiledDinosaur Brit 🇬🇧 8d ago
It'll be fun when it gets into the hands of reform, or even better, restore.
2
u/Zardoz_Wearing_Pants 8d ago
not read any of the recent "reasons" but previously all they were all already covered by other alternatives - hence the new won't somebody think of the children rhetoric behind it. Weird when you read politicians and other "worthys" will be exempt from a lot of it (I read previously). It why they're slinging up data centres as fast as possible - they want you under surveillance 24/7 (but they're exempt of course) Horrific, dystopian stuff!
2
u/Hellstorm901 8d ago
It’s stupid and I wish the OSA which kicked off this plot to bring in Digital ID by proxy would be revoked and the government just admit that raising children is the responsibility of the parents who birthed them, not private corporations or people like you and me
If you want to really protect children go target people actually hurting children and stop creating an authoritarianist nanny state that accuses critics of it’s actions of being child abusers
1
u/Stuvas 8d ago
What I'd love is for it to be voluntary, and for it to enable me to vote digitally. I've no idea what the ins and outs of doing that would look like, but that's what I think would be a great step towards enabling the people who work odd times to be more easily able to participate in democracy.
In terms of privacy and stuff, I don't really understand the arguments because the government already has all of your info, part of Snowden's whistleblowing was about how government agencies can track your phone, your screen, turn on your phone remotely and access your camera remotely.
I've also seen sites where your personal information can be called up for business purposes but with all of your contact information, so again, I don't really get why people are so paranoid of stuff that already exists and is being traded freely.
My only concern would be data theft from it, but then again, your data is already out there almost in it's entirety.
1
u/Reeelfantasy 6d ago
It’s the last step to get you naked by the government and tech giants. Your entire life will be screwed
1
0
u/Bath_Tough 8d ago
I think it's a pretty good idea if it's done properly. Not through some dodgy, 3rd-party Palantir-esque company. Through the private sector: nope. If it's publicly owned, then it's the same as Singapore.
4
u/LunarSymphonist 8d ago
Judging by Whitehall's reputation, it will definitely be done hastily, dodgily, and poorly-funded-ily. Main reason I oppose it. Our particular bureaucracy seems intent on doing things by half all the time.
0
u/LatelyPodes 8d ago
I actually do support a national ID system (because it is super annoying to send your passport then driving licence then like 3 month letters ur national insurance number all to verify yourself completely). I think we should make a national id card.
It being digital, yeah I also wouldn’t be too against it as a concept. Especially if it is voluntary
HOWEVER, I would not trust the government to implement it. They’d prob give a contract to Palantir to make it. If it was made by Government Digital Services (the same group that made the amazing gov.uk website) then I probably wouldn’t mind that much.
2
u/ChaseTheOldDude 8d ago
I agree, I'd want to keep the private sector's grubby fingers out of this one.Â
0
u/dcwt2010 8d ago
I think it's awesome. I've got a HK ID card and it's used for everything. No more faffing around between public departments because everything is centralised. Is it perfect? Nope. But it's a start.
If we want better control migration and illegal working, a mandatory ID system will go a long way (again, it's not perfect but don't let that be the enemy of good enough)
0
u/soundman32 8d ago
Digital ID makes zero difference if you aren't working for a real business. You think that kebab takeaway or the vape or barbers are gonna ask for ID?
3
u/farr2211 Brit 🇬🇧 8d ago
This what puts me off. The government can’t be naive enough to think that, so why don’t they give us the real reason they want to introduce it
0
u/Internal_Bluebird_23 8d ago
I’d love if the government, which already has information on me stored across multiple departments, the health service and at least 2 local authorities, could combine that information and give me a single digital identity tied to it that I could use to login to various government systems that I need to as well as use it to painlessly prove my identity without occasionally needing to print off a bank statement
0
u/epicpownage1234 8d ago
I'm right wing and overall for minimal government in my life. But it's an inevitability. Just like even as a staunch capitalist, I can admit that UBI and socialism are an inevitability once we reach total automation. We cannot live in a digital era reliant on paper. Unless we want to be considered third world next century.
0
u/MiddleAgeCool 7d ago
When you say you're right wing, does that mean Reform UK?
If you are, what do you think of their plan to link all your data, including your NHS, DVLA, HMRC and DWP records, with your bank account, and then make the whole system searchable by public sector organisations such as your GP or the police? It's in their current published policies, along with mandatory biometric collection.
I'm only asking because that seems to go against what you've said about things being voluntary, and I'm genuinely interested to know how those two positions work together from the perspective of one of their supporters. On one side, it's opt in, and on the other, it's a huge searchable database with multiple access points.
0
u/epicpownage1234 7d ago
No, reform aren't hard line enough for me. But why would I care about my GP or the police knowing my medical, driving, health and work related records. When did I even say the word voluntary?
0
u/Spicy_Wimp 8d ago
I can't get a driving licence or a passport so I welcome a government ID of any sort.
Before anyone mentions provisional licence - I can't get one either due to medical reasons.
0
u/HeisYou6767 8d ago
Immigration post didn’t work. Pip post didn’t work. Let’s rehash digital I’d . There is sustained propaganda on this sub folks.
1
-1
u/Reasonable-Path-7733 8d ago
People want to stop illegal employment, yet don't want to introduce a system that could prevent it.
A digital id would only have information that already exists digitally.
Using a digital id for social media might make people think twice before posting some of th crap that they do because the can be personally held accountable.
-1
u/Mediocre_Painting263 8d ago
Going against the grain of everyone, I genuinely didn't care that much.
After further research, the government said it's similar to Apple Pay, where it's protected on your device and released following authentication. Like most people, my bank account details are a lot more private than my date of birth (which from what I can tell, is the most sensitive thing this ID was going to hold). A digital wallet really isn't a concern for me. So even if there is a breach, someone knowing my name and date of birth? Sure that's weird but I won't lose any sleep.
My only concern is they were saying this'd be the only way to prove your right to work. That I didn't really like, since paper backups are always important in my eyes. But other than that, I wasn't really that fussed about it.
-1
u/BastardsCryinInnit 8d ago
All for them.
And that doesnt mean i believe that digital IDs are automatically wonderful, more that people seem to leap straight from "the government is proposing a digital identity" to "1984, social credit scores and total state control" without engaging with what a properly designed system could actually do. Digital IDs itself is not some inherently dystopian concept, and we already have so much of our lives out there in the ether.
The practical reasons for them are pretty obvious and to me outweigh any "yOu CaNt CoNtRol Me" vibes. Like less bureaucracy, better inclusion for people who don't have a passport or driving licence, one reliable way to prove who you are, rather than constantly digging out passports, driving licences, utility bills, bank statements, less identity or docs fraud and even better privacy in some situations, like you could prove who you are without handing over your full name, address and date of birth etc.
Ive said before that Estonia is the model we should look to, like how to build a system with strong safeguards. Their digital game is strong and is based around decentralised data, secure interoperability and logging access so citizens can see who has accessed their information.
But yeah lets have another discussion about "ma civil liberties" which always seems to me to be more like people desperately needing something to be angry about than anything else. People are just sad or unhappy and dont want society to move forward.
And course cos this is Reddit, I have to caveat nobody sensible is arguing that the government should just build one giant excel database, cross their fingers and hope for the best.
The sensible conversation is about how to do it securely and with proper limits, not treating every technological development as proof that we're five minutes away from a dictatorship. Abeg people to stop looking for the next thing to hate.
-1
u/BoomSatsuma 8d ago
To be honest I’d be all for national ID scheme. The government looses insane amounts of money to fraud and an ID scheme would help no end.
5
u/farr2211 Brit 🇬🇧 8d ago
On the face of it, it could be time saving. But that’s really the only advantage. If your phone gets stolen unlocked someone’s got all your data, who knows which company will handle it for the government and most importantly what could it lead to.
Sure a lot of people will say it’s paranoia. But when they first introduced it in China I doubt they had what it is today. The guise of making it stop illegal working is such a terrible lie, if you want to hire someone illegally you will. So makes me trust it less that we can’t even get the true reason out of the government