-
Seen is the word here.
The government already shares data freely with little oversight, facial recognition trials don't get oversight but when this gets brought up its panic time.
The NHS England is planning to sell all data to companies, anonymisation is probably not accurate.
I'd be all for much more oversight, in Estonia where the government is quite far in e-government there is a lot of oversight and trust.
Here trust is very low, they'd need to start by fixing the lack of control and ensure proper access controls on data.
JWestland-
Seen is the word here.
That's why I used it.
I'm not making a normative claim one way or the other. BUT, without saying it's the better system, and moving beyond issues of civic trust, I will say that there is something nice about the UK system, where I don't need a "person code" to get a mobile phone, or open a bank account, or book a doctors appointment, or get a discount rail card, or collect a parcel at the post office, or... (all legit examples in Finland, which the Estonian system has much in common with).
Having said that, I'd rather people not have to worry about being deported.
Of course you can. There are many versions of this already implemented on a per-service basis (NI, Passports, NHS, council tax). But requiring people to register their residence within n months of living somewhere for a centralized database is seen to be something less about services and more about surveillance by many.