The UK’s digital ID system, known as One Login, triggered major controversy in 2025 due to serious security vulnerabilities and privacy concerns, leading critics to liken it to the infamous Horizon scandal.
One Login is a government-backed identity verification platform designed for access to public services and private sector uses such as employment verification and banking. Despite government assurances around its security and user benefits, public confidence plummeted amid allegations of cybersecurity failures and rushed implementation planned for November 18, 2025.
Critics, including MPs and cybersecurity experts, revealed that the system failed critical red-team penetration tests, with hackers gaining privileged access during simulated cyberattacks. Further concerns arose over development practices, with portions of the platform built by contractors in Romania on unsecured workstations without adequate security clearance. The government missed security deadlines, with full compliance expected only by March 2026—months after the mandatory rollout began.
This “rollout-at-all-costs” approach amidst unresolved security flaws has created a significant trust deficit, risking citizens’ personal data, which includes sensitive information like biometrics and identification documents. One Login collects comprehensive data, such as name, birth date, biometrics, and a selfie video for identity verification. This data is shared across government services and third parties, raising fears of surveillance, identity theft, and misuse.
The controversy draws a parallel to the Horizon IT scandal, where faulty software led to wrongful prosecutions of hundreds of subpostmasters. Opponents warn that flawed digital ID systems could cause similar large-scale harms, including wrongful exclusions and damaged reputations, undermining public trust in government IT projects.
Public opposition has grown, with petitions and polls showing more people opposing digital ID than supporting it. Civil liberties groups caution against intrusive government tracking and call for stronger safeguards, transparency, and privacy protections. The Prime Minister defends the program as a tool to simplify life and reduce identity fraud, but critics label it expensive, intrusive, and potentially dangerous.
In conclusion, the UK’s digital ID initiative stands at a critical crossroads, facing a crisis of confidence and comparisons to past government technology scandals. Robust security, oversight, and public trust are imperative to avoid a repeat of such failures and ensure the system serves citizens without compromising their privacy or rights.