Fact check: What are the existing digital ID options for people without smartphones?

1. Why the smartphone gap matters — pressure from policy and practice

Governments and standards bodies are treating the lack of smartphones as a policy problem with operational consequences because phone-based digital IDs exclude significant populations and create security and equity risks, prompting explicit commitments to alternatives. The UK government, for example, has signaled it will offer a free physical card alternative alongside a phone app, showing that national plans increasingly assume mixed delivery channels to avoid exclusion ^[1]. Similarly, international reporting notes that countries rolling out digital ID systems often include physical national ID cards or separate device options, embedding non-smartphone choices into deployment plans ^[2].

2. Physical cards and traditional IDs — the fallback that governments rely on

Physical, government-issued ID cards remain the most widely cited non-smartphone option because they are already interoperable with many in-person services and can be designed to serve as a digital-ID equivalent when backed by policy and verification procedures. Coverage describing European rollouts and UK proposals frames physical cards as a deliberate alternative, not an afterthought, and describes moving the legal and technical frameworks to recognize such cards for the same services a phone app would provide ^{[2] [1]}. These cards require robust issuance and anti-fraud measures to match digital assurances, a point emphasized across recent reporting.

3. Smartcards, tokens and offline hardware — bridging digital assurance without a phone

Beyond paper-like cards, countries and standards communities are exploring smartcards and dedicated hardware tokens that hold cryptographic keys or verifiable credentials for use at kiosks or readers. Standards guidance and industry analyses discuss verifiable digital credentials (VDCs) and passkeys as technologies that can be instantiated on non-phone devices—enabling phishing-resistant authentication or attribute sharing without a smartphone ^[3]. Such hardware approaches require co-deployed reader infrastructure and clear processes for credential revocation and re-issuance, challenges highlighted in technical and policy commentary ^[4].

4. In-person verification and augmented processes — practical, lower-tech routes

Many services continue to rely on in-person verification as a pragmatic path for people without phones: presenting a physical ID, using notarized attestations, or employing human-mediated checks. Reporter analyses and policy pieces underline that mobile driver's licenses and other digital wallet credentials remain constrained to in-person contexts in parts of the U.S., illustrating how hybrid models combine digital and human verification to include non-smartphone users ^[5]. Those hybrid arrangements can be quickly deployed but risk inconsistent user experience and higher administrative cost unless standardized.

5. Standards and security — passkeys, VDCs and the accessibility question

Standards organizations and technical proposals (including FIDO-aligned work and NIST drafts) emphasize passkeys and verifiable digital credentials as interoperable, phishing-resistant building blocks, and explicitly recognize the need for syncable or alternative authenticators to maintain accessibility ^{[3] [4]}. These documents position technical interoperability as a prerequisite for non-smartphone options to be secure and usable, but they also flag the need for legal frameworks and deployment guidelines so that devices like smartcards or printed cryptographic tokens are accepted by service providers.

6. Privacy, ZKPs and legal protections — criticisms that shape options

Policy analysts warn that technical fixes alone won’t solve public concerns; privacy-preserving techniques (like zero-knowledge proofs) can reduce data exposure, but such mechanisms must be paired with legal protections and clear governance to be effective ^[6]. Commentators argue ZKPs are a promising building block but caution they are not a complete solution—deployments still require statutory limits on data use and accountability to prevent mission creep. This framing has influenced how countries design physical and hardware alternatives to preserve privacy for non-smartphone users.

7. Timelines and geopolitical context — who’s moving fastest and why it matters

Recent reporting from October 2025 and September 2025 shows a patchwork of national approaches with Europe and select U.S. states piloting mixed systems, while standards bodies publish drafts aimed at harmonization ^{[2] [5] [4]}. The UK’s October 16, 2025 announcement of a free physical card underscores political pressure to avoid exclusion, while international rollouts reported October 22, 2025 indicate that learnings and safeguards are circulating globally. These varied timelines reflect different political priorities and technical readiness, which will shape transnational interoperability.

8. What’s missing and choices policymakers face next

Current analyses consistently identify gaps: the need for legally recognized equivalence between physical and digital credentials, scalable reader infrastructure for smartcards, durable revocation and recovery processes for lost credentials, and comprehensive privacy safeguards to accompany technical designs ^{[1] [4] [6]}. Policymakers must decide whether to emphasize low-tech legal equivalence (physical cards) first, invest in hardware and reader ecosystems, or accelerate standards-based digital credentials with parallel non-phone delivery mechanisms. Each choice shapes inclusion, cost, and risk profiles in measurable ways.