What alternatives or exemptions exist for people who refuse or cannot use digital ID?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Governments and private vendors are offering a mix of technical alternatives and pledged exemptions for people who cannot or will not use phone-based digital IDs: ministers in the UK say a “digitally enabled physical alternative” and in‑person onboarding are being considered, while critics warn exemptions may be limited [1] [2] [3]. Industry lists many non‑GOV digital ID products (Onfido, Trulioo, Jumio, etc.) as functional alternatives for businesses’ identity checks, but those are commercial solutions rather than legal exemptions from state mandates [4] [5] [6].
1. What governments say: physical cards and face‑to‑face support
Officials in the UK have publicly acknowledged planning for alternatives: Cabinet Office junior minister Josh Simons told reporters the government is “considering options like a digitally enabled physical alternative for those without access to technology, as well as in‑person onboarding support for those who struggle to engage digitally,” and the public consultation will examine inclusion measures [1] [7] [2]. The official rollout guidance likewise says IDs “will not have to be carried day‑to‑day” and that alternatives such as physical documents or face‑to‑face support will be part of consultation materials [8].
2. What critics and NGOs say about the adequacy of exemptions
A coalition of 13 NGOs argues mandatory digital ID risks excluding people and eroding rights; their briefing frames “physical alternatives” as insufficiently defined and warns that mandatory schemes could entrench dependency on a single system rather than preserve existing, diversified ways to prove identity [9]. Civil society and digital‑rights groups such as the EFF have also criticised the UK plan and urged greater safeguards and meaningful opt‑outs [10] [9].
3. Private‑sector alternatives are plentiful — but they’re not legal exemptions
Market directories list many identity‑verification products — Trulioo, Onfido, Jumio, SEON, ComplyCube and others — as alternatives or competitors for businesses that need KYC/AML or age checks [4] [5] [6]. These solutions can let firms verify customers without a government wallet, but they do not substitute for legal requirements set by states; their role is operational, not a statutory “exemption” from a national digital‑ID mandate [4] [5].
4. How other countries manage non‑digital users (lessons in variety)
Reporting on global practice shows a spectrum: some countries pair digital credentials with conventional IDs or mobile driver’s licences (mDLs), and EU eIDAS‑compliant wallets coexist with in‑person registration in many places [11] [12]. Biometric and decentralized wallets have been deployed alongside offline tokens in places like Papua New Guinea and elsewhere, demonstrating that hybrid models are technologically feasible [13].
5. Practical gaps and the politics of “limited exemptions”
Media analysis suggests political rhetoric and policy detail can diverge: press reports note the government’s announcement framed digital ID as mandatory for right‑to‑work checks while saying there will be “limited exemptions” for those unable to use digital systems — a formulation that critics fear could be narrow in practice [14] [8]. Parliamentary petitions and big‑name pushback show public anxiety that promised alternatives may not fully address exclusion [15] [9].
6. What that means for individuals who refuse or cannot use digital ID
Available sources indicate three realistic outcomes: (a) the state may provide a physical, “digitally enabled” card or an in‑person verification route for digitally excluded people [1] [2]; (b) private ID providers offer commercial non‑wallet verification that businesses might accept, though acceptance will vary [4] [5]; and (c) civil society will press for broader statutory opt‑outs or safeguards, but the shape of those protections remains contested [9] [10].
7. Hidden incentives and who benefits
Observers point out that technology firms stand to gain from a single national scheme and that political momentum can favour centralised solutions even where decentralised or low‑tech alternatives might suffice; critics allege private interests drive some policy choices, an argument made in commentary pieces though not proven in official documents [16] [9]. Government communications emphasise inclusion and efficiency as rationales for the programme [8] [7].
8. Bottom line and what to watch next
The most consequential determinant will be the public consultation and subsequent legislation: they will define whether alternatives are robust legal exemptions or limited accommodations [8] [7]. Watch for the consultation text, explicit definitions of “physical alternative,” and rules employers must follow for right‑to‑work checks; current reporting shows promises of alternatives but not full detail on their scope or enforceability [1] [2] [8].