Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there any government-issued digital ID cards for people without smartphones?
Executive Summary
Governments rolling out digital ID programs generally plan alternative non-smartphone routes—face-to-face issuance, physical credentials, or assisted services—but implementation details and guarantees vary by country and program, leaving gaps for the most vulnerable. Evidence across UK, U.S. and state-level programs shows a mixture of explicit commitments to offline paths and examples where digital IDs currently require smartphones, creating a patchwork of real-world access [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The central issue is not whether alternatives are contemplated—many are—but whether they are specified, funded, and legally equivalent in practice.
1. Governments say they will include non-phone routes — but details are thin and timing matters
Several policy documents and government statements assert that digital ID schemes will provide alternatives for people without smartphones, including physical cards, assisted digital services, and face-to-face verification. The UK’s recent announcements explicitly promise offline or assisted access for those without devices while the consultation sets out to define assurance, consent, and recovery across routes [1] [2] [4]. Those are commitments in principle with publication dates in autumn 2025 and earlier explanations indicating government intent; however, the consultations and implementation timelines mean the precise operational rules and legal equivalence of non-digital routes remain to be written and funded [1] [4]. This creates potential delays between policy promise and day-to-day reality for excluded users.
2. Real-world programs show two contrasting models: phone-first vs. multi-route
State and national pilots illustrate a split. Some schemes are phone-first: Georgia’s digital driver ID explicitly requires Apple/Android wallets and lists device/software requirements, offering no dedicated non-phone digital alternative beyond traditional physical cards [3]. By contrast, UK proposals and some government explainers assert the primary storage will be on phones but promise physical alternatives and face-to-face help for those who cannot use smartphones, framing digital as the primary channel but not the sole legal route [2] [4]. That divergence matters for users: where phone-first implementations dominate, people without smartphones must rely on legacy physical credentials; where multi-route programs are implemented fully, non-smartphone users get materially equivalent access if the government delivers on assistance and distribution.
3. In-person verification and postal proofing are practical workarounds — but they’re not identical to digital IDs
Several systems leverage in-person proofing to serve those without smartphones: U.S. programs use Post Office–based in-person proofing to issue digital certificates or to complete identity verification started online, and third-party services allow printed codes for retail-location completion [5] [6] [7]. These options enable people without smartphones to participate, but they often require an initial online action, travel to a designated office, or reliance on third-party staff—creating barriers for people with mobility limits, no internet access, or time constraints. Moreover, postal or in-person proofing typically issues a digital credential or certificate that still expects some electronic use later; the equivalence in convenience and legal standing to a phone-stored credential depends on the program rules.
4. Civil liberties groups and accessibility advocates point to persistent risks and unequal outcomes
Critics emphasize that promises of alternatives can mask material exclusion if the alternatives are lower-assurance, harder to access, or not legally treated as equal. Campaigners in the UK and elsewhere have raised concerns about privacy, coercion, and the risk that non-phone routes become de facto second-class options—or that individuals must reveal extra documentation to obtain offline options [2] [8]. The policy texts often cite smartphone ownership rates (e.g., 93% in some UK materials) to justify phone-first designs, but that obscures the cumulative disadvantage of the remaining population segments—older adults, people experiencing homelessness, low-income households—who may face substantial friction obtaining offline equivalence even when governments say they will provide it [8].
5. The practical takeaway: check local program rules and test delivery before relying on equivalence
Whether a government-issued digital ID is truly accessible without a smartphone depends on program-level specifics: statutory recognition of physical/assisted routes, funding for in-person centers, clear assurance-level parity, and published recovery processes. Some jurisdictions already require smartphones for their digital ID products, while others expressly plan physical alternatives and assisted access but have yet to publish the operational details that guarantee parity [3] [1] [4]. For individuals and organizations navigating digital ID rollouts, the prudent step is to review the latest local guidance, monitor consultation outcomes, and demand legally enforceable parity so that non-smartphone users receive the same rights and services as phone-based holders [2] [7].