I appreciate your clarifications and follow ups, especially also to support the posting from @liminal (which I agree with) proposing that having well-defined models of threats is a pre-requisite to developing a workable security procedure.
Well-respected. But better when the term “snoop” rather than home invader is used.
–
JJW
We all have beliefs. We all have very strong beliefs. When someone expresses an heretical position anger is unavoidable. I’m just thankful that Catholics and Protestants have mostly stopped killing each other in Western countries.
One thing I wish is that Apple would allow people to change their cloud vendors. I would make Proton My Default on my iPhone if I could.
We certainly hold strong beliefs. Yet I respectfully disagree (but I’m not angry 
) that anger is “unavoidable.” Anger is appropriate, and at times necessary, when someone does something wrong, such as harming a child or being unfaithful to a spouse. It is even appropriate when someone advocates for action that is immoral and harmful. But that is not the same as being angry simply because we disagree with someone—because they have a different perspective, worldview, or political position arising from that worldview.
Anger is not “unavoidable” when someone merely believes something different from us. While it may be difficult to resist anger, self-control and the cultivation of civility are both possible and essential when engaging in discussions about differing beliefs. To quote Marcus Aurelius, “How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.” Anger rarely convinces anyone of the truth of our convictions. If we practiced greater self-control and civility, perhaps we could move beyond rage politics and accomplish something constructive.
At my school, I expect our students to engage in vigorous and informed debate in the classroom, but not to display anger toward classmates who hold opposing views.
I am certain that some in this forum disagree, perhaps strongly, with my Christian worldview. That does not make me angry, nor have I seen anger directed toward me.
Civility and respect in disagreement are what make this forum so refreshingly different from much of the web.
“Anger is a passion, useful if directed by reason, but sinful if it exceeds its proper bounds.” — Summa Theologica - Thomas Aquinas
“It is better to deny entrance to anger than to admit it and then try to control it once it has entered.” — Augustine of Hippo
" Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism." – C.S. Lewis
I would change to Proton (or similar) if I could.
I think that is the only real solution at the end of the day. Cloud vendors who are willing to protect privacy.
I’m bumping up against politics here, but I believe that it is highly important and relevant. My understanding is that digital ID has arrived in Great Britain, and you can’t work unless you have one. Many, and I agree, believe that this is a major step toward a Social Credit System like they have in China. If we get that, your current complaints regarding privacy loss seem like really small stuff.
I’m torn here (I live in the UK). The difficulty you have is that if someone has no ID you don’t know who they are and you have to trust a perfect stranger. I know someone who works in the civil service and estimates at least 50% got the job by others doing their online tests and cheating. This has also been a problem with people getting someone else doing their driving licence. On the other hand an ID could become a form of victimisation. I say could, because nations like Germany have had ID cards for decades and not seemingly suffered much harm by it. What is one to do? I wonder How I would approach it if I was government?
A controversial perspective is that if people come from cultures where bribery and lying was necessary to survive they are unlikely to behave differently coming to a country where that might not be necessary. But don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of natives in the UK wanting to cheat the system who even create YouTube videos showing others how to do it.
What I’m trying to say is that the situation is complex and no single approach is going solve all the issues and there may not necessarily be a nefarious intent behind legislation such as ID cards. They may simply be looking to solve a particular thorny issue.
Edit
This is realistically already true. All employment requires you to verify your identity through credit checks, address proof, bank statements, National Insurance number and so forth.
I recently bought a house and had go through a myriad of very invasive checks.
I disagree with this. Everyone has the ability to control their response to something.
Even if you are angry inside, you don’t need to express that.
I’m certainly not an expert on this but my understanding is that the digital ID is something like a single coded token that would be linked to only you. It likely would make it much easier to buy a house, but also would make it much easier for someone in power (politician, bureaucrat, etc) to prevent you from ever buying a house. I agree that there are two sides to the argument, but looking at the extreme to which this has been taken in China is really scary. Though not an issue in China, suppose the digital ID was linked to which political party you supported, or even to how you voted.
Google’s AI overview: China’s social credit system is a national system that tracks and rates the trustworthiness of individuals and businesses through a complex, multi-faceted approach that combines rewards for good behavior with punishments for breaking rules. It involves government agencies and private companies collecting data from various sources, including financial records, court judgments, and online activity. Those with high scores may receive perks like easier access to loans, while those with low scores can face consequences like restricted travel, lower-quality internet, and a loss of privileges. The system is designed to enforce laws, regulate behavior, and promote a certain standard of citizenship, according to the government.
How it works
Information is collected from a wide range of sources, including financial history, government records, and online activity. This is done through a combination of government efforts and private sector contributions.
This data is used to evaluate individuals and businesses. While some systems may not assign a single score, others have pilot programs that assign a score, which can influence privileges and penalties.
Rewards and punishments:
Rewards: Individuals and companies with good scores can receive benefits like waived rental deposits, tax breaks, promotions, and better access to services.
Punishments: Those with low scores may face restrictions such as being banned from booking flights or high-speed train tickets, having their internet speed throttled, or facing difficulty with public transport.
Goals and implications
The system’s stated goal is to build a culture of trust, encourage law-abiding behavior, and provide a tool for governance and economic steering.
Critics view the system as a tool for government surveillance and repression, while proponents argue that it helps to build a more orderly society.
I understand. At one time I and my assistant did all the interviewing and hiring for a location of around 1000 employees. I could not legally hire anyone under the age of 18 but federal law did not allow me to ask an applicants age or date of birth.
Today social media sites are being expected/required to protect the information of children, without any official way of determining their age.
The U.S. has “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver’s licenses.” known as Real ID, that requires each state to have the same data on all drivers licenses, etc. Until I applied for, and received, my Real ID drivers license I could not fly domestically without my passport.
But it’s not the same as a national identity card because it would required the government to query 50 different databases containing the same data in “in a transferable format”.
Sorry but this is incorrect. According to GOV.UK, Digital ID is expected to be rolled out to all UK citizens and legal residents by the end of this Parliament:
Digital ID scheme: explainer
Is there any evidence to support this?
Civil Service Statistics 2025 shows that employment stands at 549,660 headcount and 516,150 on a full-time equivalent basis (FTE), as at 31 March 2025:
Statistical bulletin - Civil Service Statistics: 2025
Some roles only require an interview, a presentation, an online test or an assessment centre but other others might need to complete all of these elements:
There is in the experience of people who work in the service. The systems for employing people are online tests which are now easy enough to pass by putting in the answer from any AI engine. This is known as a fairly common practice by people in the service. I’m not sure how this data would be collected as people are not going to officially admit to it. People who want a job are going to do everything they can to get it. I even know one manager who conducts online interviews who knows by the slow response that the person is giving that they are waiting for the answer from AI. The problem is you cannot outrightly call them out as you can’t specifically prove it.
All told the current systems do not appear fit for purpose in our rapidy developing AI age.
I am In favor of trained emotions. “Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,”
Ephesians 4:26 NRSVUE
I’ve made this a practice in my marriage. If I go to bed angry, I get up, walk downstairs and apologize for my contribution to the issue. My wife does the same. It has served our marriage well—43 years and counting. 
Same here. And it’s not that hard to put in practice, really.
Color me surprised here, then what’s the manager agency here? If he can’t reject a candidate because he suspects he’s using ChatGPT to provide the answers… why is not that part of his job being automated already?
As a senior manager in the civil service with many years of experience in HR, Recruitment, and Legal across various departments, this is not my experience or that of my colleagues.
As previously stated, the recruitment system for employing people does not rely on online tests. The process used is often determined by the role and includes evidence based criterion.
I know of more managers and panel members that have experienced the same. However, we are quite adept at identifying candidates who use AI during the interview process and we do call it out. Many are unsuccessful because they fail to demonstrate the core competencies required for the role.
Although cheating and the misuse of AI exist in various fields, they do not guarantee success. While some will inevitably slip through the net, there should be enough checks and balances in any system to help minimise the risk.
It is only hard if one lets their pride get in the way.