Director's and Digital ID

[smithster1]

I am a director of a Ltd company and as we know they are now requiring directors to submit to digital ID verification.
Digital ID and any such verifications to third party ID companies pretty much goes against what I stand for. I will not have my face scanned like I am some kind of convict.
What are the options moving forward?

 

[Tables Force]

You can verify yourself with the Gov UK OneLogin directly (if you have a passport/driving licence), no third party involved.

Verify your identity for Companies House

Use this service to verify your identity for Companies House.

www.gov.uk

 

[fisicx]

What are the options moving forward?

You either accept the requirement to prove who are with a mugshot or you resign as a director.

 

[Mark T Jones]

They are asking you to provide a copy of the digital ID most people already have.

Your options are to be part of it or to opt out by not being a director.

 

[Newchodge]

I am a director of a Ltd company and as we know they are now requiring directors to submit to digital ID verification.
Digital ID and any such verifications to third party ID companies pretty much goes against what I stand for. I will not have my face scanned like I am some kind of convict.
What are the options moving forward?

How do you manage without a passport or driving licence?

 

[smithster1]

How do you manage without a passport or driving licence?

I have those. But this is something entirely different. This is opting in to a brand new surveilance system that links all of the different areas in one single entity, from your passport, driving, job, banking, what you buy, what you post online, who you speak to, all of it.. This is the precursor to the digital ID app they want to roll out in a few years. You are aware of this right?

 

[DontAsk]

I have those. But this is something entirely different. This is opting in to a brand new surveilance system that links all of the different areas in one single entity, from your passport, driving, job, banking, what you buy, what you post online, who you speak to, all of it.. This is the precursor to the digital ID app they want to roll out in a few years. You are aware of this right?

Retire to a cabin in the woods then.

 

[Newchodge]

I have those. But this is something entirely different. This is opting in to a brand new surveilance system that links all of the different areas in one single entity, from your passport, driving, job, banking, what you buy, what you post online, who you speak to, all of it.. This is the precursor to the digital ID app they want to roll out in a few years. You are aware of this right?

Do you genuinely believe that those things are not already happening?

 

[smithster1]

Retire to a cabin in the woods then.

Yeah that's helpful.

 

[smithster1]

Do you genuinely believe that those things are not already happening?

Do you?

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

I will not have my face scanned like I am some kind of convict.

Why not get your face scanned like a director wanting to access a government service, then?

 

[Paul Norman]

This thread has made me smile.

The straight answer to your opening question is as given. You have no option other than to resign as a company director.

Discussions as to whether or not you like the policy are a seperate issue.

 

[fisicx]

I have those. But this is something entirely different. This is opting in to a brand new surveilance system that links all of the different areas in one single entity, from your passport, driving, job, banking, what you buy, what you post online, who you speak to, all of it..

All of that is already happening.

But irrelevant to your question. If you don’t want to comply with the legislation you cannot be a director.

 

[smithster1]

Do you genuinely believe that those things are not already happening?

All of that is already happening.

But irrelevant to your question. If you don’t want to comply with the legislation you cannot be a director.

Do you not see a problem with this? Are you simply OK to accept the new terms? Do you not stand for anything?

 

[fisicx]

Doesn’t matter how I feel about the relentless surveillance, doesn’t matter how much you rail against the system. If you want to be a director you need to abide by the law.

As an aside, every time you walk into a shop, down the street, drive your car your face is being scanned. You watch TV they are watching you. Turn off your phone and the microphone can still listen. It’s everywhere. You might not like it but there is no escape. And if you use any sort of social media it’s much much worse.

 

[Ozzy]

Do you not see a problem with this?

I do not see a problem with this, and for one, I am glad that finally something is being done to combat the fraudulent companies being set up in the UK and used to launder money. I campaigned for these changes to come in for years, so yes, I personally helped bring this change in.

It is very simply, as others have said, if you want to be a company director in the UK then you are required to verify your identity with Companies House.

This is opting in to a brand new surveilance system that links all of the different areas in one single entity, from your passport, driving, job, banking, what you buy, what you post online, who you speak to, all of it.

...and I gave my view on this in my reply to this thread here on the same topic.
Our beloved Government is barely capable of dressing itself, let alone building a mass surveillance system.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Do you not see a problem with this? Are you simply OK to accept the new terms? Do you not stand for anything?

Separate the discussion

A time out debate around the topic of surveillance will probably get traction.

As a business topic it's clear cut. You have choices, and choices often come with compromise.

However I'm with @Ozzy here, I think this is long overdue and will be far more good than bad.

 

[Ozzy]

A time out debate around the topic of surveillance will probably get traction.

Oh god

 

[DontAsk]

However I'm with @Ozzy here, I think this is long overdue and will be far more good than bad.

+1

If you have nothing to hide why would you not want to help crack down on fraudulent directors?

 

[smithster1]

+1

If you have nothing to hide why would you not want to help crack down on fraudulent directors?

Oh damn that really is the worst reply... "If you have nothing to hide......"
It's a matter of principle.

Anyway I don't want to waste anyone elses time... It seems like the vast majority of you are on the side of the oppressor.
Good luck.

 

[fisicx]

So what are you going to do?

Capitulate or resign?

 

[smithster1]

So what are you going to do?

Capitulate or resign?

Probably cease to be a director that's for sure.
If you think this will stop dodgy businesses laundering money then that's very wishful.

 

[campbeji]

+1

If you have nothing to hide why would you not want to help crack down on fraudulent directors?

So you're saying that you don't mind what has to happen if it helps to cut down on fraudulent directors?

I don't have anything to hide, but I try to minimise my exposure to surveillance and other forms of tracking etc.

I know that there is probably very little happening with any of this data that I would disagree with, at the moment. As a thought exercise, why not consider the worst case scenarios and just see how much it would take to get to that point? The government is pretty hopeless, but overall, they have the public's best interest in mind. If we don't stand up for our rights now, what are we going to do when they have been eroded and some lunatic gets into power?

If the police came knocking at your door tonight, without a warrant, and asked to search your home because they belived that you might have done something wrong, do you say "Sure, come on in" or do you say "No". If you say "No" and the police say, "Why not if you have nothing to hide"? What would you think?

This probably makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but i'm not, I can just see how things are going.

Jim

 

[fisicx]

Probably cease to be a director that's for sure.
If you think this will stop dodgy businesses laundering money then that's very wishful.

That's not the purpose of the legislation.

They already know who you are. They know what you look like and where you live. All this is doing is making sure the person registered on CH is you.

 

[NickGrogan]

Oh damn that really is the worst reply... "If you have nothing to hide......"
It's a matter of principle.

Anyway I don't want to waste anyone elses time... It seems like the vast majority of you are on the side of the oppressor.
Good luck.

What principle?

You have a driving licence and passport, so the gov has your face and every other bit of ID.

You go outside, so you can get photographed and films many times every day.

You're on the internet and probably not using a VPN (as UKBF blocks many of them) so your internet history is known.

 

[NickGrogan]

The government is pretty hopeless, but overall, they have the public's best interest in mind

Agree with the first, little evidence for the second.

do you say "Sure, come on in"

Yes.

 

[NickGrogan]

Probably cease to be a director that's for sure.

PSC (People with Significant Control ) also need to register, so stepping down as director probably wont be enough,

 

[AmazonGeek]

This makes me chuckle. This is huge in the US (I spent some time there when I was younger and keep in touch). People rail against the system, surveillance, tracking, IDs, etc and try to stay 'off the grid' but then carry a smart phone around with them all the time which does all of that anyway.

I assume that those who don't want to be tracked are using an old Nokia...?

 

[NickGrogan]

Similar to people being worried about "EMF" from smart meters, sitting at their computers all day watching YouTube videos about it.

Apparently, the computer "EMF" is ok

 

[fisicx]

Or complaining about government surveillance on social media.

 

[scstock]

Looks like the system is a shambles - I filed a confirmation statement for an LLP yesterday and included the two Partners IDs as required.

They took my £34 and all seem to be fine, but then this morning I get an email saying it has been rejected because :

• All active directors are required to verify their identities. You must complete verification for all directors that are as yet unverified and obtain personal codes before you can file your next confirmation statement. You will be required to enter these personal codes as part of the CS01 application.

I did include these details, so this makes no sense. So I've just spent 30 minutes on hold and on the phone to HMRC where they told me they've been having lots of technical issues and I should try to file again next week. Apparently, the £34 fee for the rejected submission will be refunded and I'll have to pay it again when I re-file

The deadline for our filing is next Friday.

 

[Newchodge]

Looks like the system is a shambles - I filed a confirmation statement for an LLP yesterday and included the two Partners IDs as required.

They took my £34 and all seem to be fine, but then this morning I get an email saying it has been rejected because :

• All active directors are required to verify their identities. You must complete verification for all directors that are as yet unverified and obtain personal codes before you can file your next confirmation statement. You will be required to enter these personal codes as part of the CS01 application.

I did include these details, so this makes no sense. So I've just spent 30 minutes on hold and on the phone to HMRC where they told me they've been having lots of technical issues and I should try to file again next week. Apparently, the £34 fee for the rejected submission will be refunded and I'll have to pay it again when I re-file

The deadline for our filing is next Friday.

I assume you contacted CH rather than HMRC?

 

[DontAsk]

Or becoming "ill" due to a phone ,mast that wasn't even powered up.

 

[campbeji]

Agree with the first, little evidence for the second.


Yes.

OK, that first part might be wishful thinking on my part

Allowing the police to search your home without a warrant is asking for trouble. If they suspect you of something, either legitimately or due to mistaken identity, and want to search without a warrant, then they either don't have enough evidence to get one or are just on a fishing trip. There is a good chance that after the search, they will have found evidence of something. At the very least, it could be a traumatic experience for you and your family, but think how bad it could be if they decided that they needed to take all your tech, phones, computers, etc, to perform further analysis on. I don't know about you, but my business stops without my tech.

Anyway, I don't think it is likely for this to happen to most people, but it does happen.

Jim

 

[scstock]

I assume you contacted CH rather than HMRC?

Yes CH, my bad.

 

[Mark T Jones]

This makes me chuckle. This is huge in the US (I spent some time there when I was younger and keep in touch). People rail against the system, surveillance, tracking, IDs, etc and try to stay 'off the grid' but then carry a smart phone around with them all the time which does all of that anyway.

I assume that those who don't want to be tracked are using an old Nokia...?

In many cases, wave around their loyalty cards and post their personal life all over social media

 

[Mark T Jones]

Looks like the system is a shambles - I filed a confirmation statement for an LLP yesterday and included the two Partners IDs as required.

They took my £34 and all seem to be fine, but then this morning I get an email saying it has been rejected because :

• All active directors are required to verify their identities. You must complete verification for all directors that are as yet unverified and obtain personal codes before you can file your next confirmation statement. You will be required to enter these personal codes as part of the CS01 application.

I did include these details, so this makes no sense. So I've just spent 30 minutes on hold and on the phone to HMRC where they told me they've been having lots of technical issues and I should try to file again next week. Apparently, the £34 fee for the rejected submission will be refunded and I'll have to pay it again when I re-file

The deadline for our filing is next Friday.

I'd certainly agree - in common with most of these initiatives, it was specified by a committee who knew we had no choice and built by techies who didn't even know the customer existed

 

[smithster1]

Looks like the system is a shambles - I filed a confirmation statement for an LLP yesterday and included the two Partners IDs as required.

They took my £34 and all seem to be fine, but then this morning I get an email saying it has been rejected because :

• All active directors are required to verify their identities. You must complete verification for all directors that are as yet unverified and obtain personal codes before you can file your next confirmation statement. You will be required to enter these personal codes as part of the CS01 application.

I did include these details, so this makes no sense. So I've just spent 30 minutes on hold and on the phone to HMRC where they told me they've been having lots of technical issues and I should try to file again next week. Apparently, the £34 fee for the rejected submission will be refunded and I'll have to pay it again when I re-file

The deadline for our filing is next Friday.

Yes you have to use 3rd party ID verification companies to literally scan your face, too much!

 

[fisicx]

Yes you have to use 3rd party ID verification companies to literally scan your face, too much!

No you don't. Worked just fine for me.

But it's irrelevant, you made it very clear you value your privacy so would be resigning as a director (and PSC if applicable).

 

[Ivanzyt]

I don't want to burst your bubble, but no one is surveying you. No one really cares cos, just like me, you are not very interesting. Now, maybe I have you wrong and you are some kind of foreign agent or something but if you are anything like me, and pretty much everyone else, you are utterly trivial and boring to the authorities. No one cares. I know it's a bit of a downer to say that, my ego would very much like to think of teams of MI6 agents pouring over my profile and taking a real interest in me as an international man of mystery, but the honest answer is that I'm just not very interesting in that way. And neither are you, sorry.

So really, don't fuss about this supposed intrusion of the surveillance state. You are just a boring pleb like me that no one really cares about. If you have a passport, your face is already "scanned like a convict" and all this new digital identity is doing is using a passport to verify you are who you say you are at a company's house. There are many well-documented cases of fraudulent director and company listings on Companies House, and this just stops that nonsense. It helps stop scammers using fake companies to scam people and launder money for criminals, this is a good thing and a good use of technology. Its not some sinister plan to put you under surveillance and mak you eat bugs. As long as you are not involved in scamming people or fraud then you have nothing to worry about. "They" already have your photo and biometrics from your passport anyway so you are not giving the government anything they don't have already. It took me about 5 minutes to do. No big deal.