A few weeks ago, on September 26, the left-wing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the introduction of a digital identification number for all British citizens – ostensibly to combat illegal immigration and undeclared work. The government plans to introduce the digital ID by the end of the parliamentary term in 2029. It will allow employers and landlords to verify the legal status of residents in the United Kingdom.
The digital identity system, known as the “BritCard,” is intended, according to the government, primarily to combat illegal migration. Starmer had described the previous government’s immigration policy in November 2024 as a failed “experiment” by the Conservatives (but his own performance on the migration front is no better).
Opposition Mounts
However, Starmer’s plan is facing strong opposition. So far, some 2.8 million Britons have signed a petition demanding an immediate halt to the introduction of ID cards. The initiative warns that this is a “dangerous step towards mass surveillance and digital control.” Thirty-seven members of the House of Commons support this demand in an open letter, expressing their fear that the project could lead to a “surveillance state” and a “dangerous and permanent change in the relationship between the government and the governed.”
The non-governmental organization Big Brother Watch expressed its concerns in detail in a statement dated September 28. The organization points to the “function creep” problem: “Mandatory ID systems have a strong tendency to be expanded beyond their original purpose.” In the past, ID systems have been “repeatedly proposed to address the moral panic of the time – be it bigamy, football hooliganism, or terrorism.”
Furthermore: “Digital ID systems can uniquely infringe on privacy, equality, and civil liberties. They would allow the state to collect vast amounts of personal information about the population in centralized government databases.” Linking government records would create “a comprehensive picture of a person’s life.”
International Criticism
The British initiative has also drawn international criticism. Telegram founder Pavel Durov warned in early October of a “dystopian shift” in the way we deal with digital communication. He included the British digital identity, among other measures, in those developments that could degenerate into an “ultimate instrument of control” that threatens the “legacy” of freedom of past generations.
Proponents of digital IDs dismiss such objections. Science Minister Liz Kendall described the concerns as the result of “fear-mongering” and “disinformation.” Ryan Wain of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change stated that the resistance largely comes from “crackpots and conspiracy theorists.”
The debate in Great Britain is likely to foreshadow similar controversies in Germany. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, echoing the British government’s arguments, has already made it clear that, from the Christian Democratic Union’s (CDU) perspective, digital identification mechanisms can guarantee “genuine migration control.” In February, he also proposed a ten percent discount for health insurance customers who make their data digitally available.
The international context lends additional weight to these debates. In 2024, as part of the UN Global Compact for Digital Identity, 193 member states – including both the United Kingdom and Germany – committed to introducing a digital identity. The provision of the necessary digital infrastructure is an integral component of the UN’s maligned Global Digital Compact (GDC).
The GDC Is a Dangerous, Flawed, and Unaccountable Power Grab
The GDC is not a visionary roadmap for digital cooperation — it is a bureaucratic, top-down, state-centric imposition masquerading as global consensus. It fails on substance, process, and principle while being a censorship and surveillance Trojan Horse: The GDC’s language is vague enough to weaponize.
“Information integrity” = code for state-approved narratives.
“Trust and safety” = justification for mass content moderation and deplatforming.
“Data for SDGs” = blanket permission for unrestricted government data collection, including biometrics and behavioral tracking.
No mention of:
Proportionality
Judicial oversight
Independent appeal
Protection for whistleblowers or journalists
This isn’t digital cooperation — it’s digital control with UN branding.
No comments.
By submitting a comment you grant Free West Media a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate and irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin’s discretion. Your email is used for verification purposes only, it will never be shared.