Why digital IDs could end privacy forever.

Why digital IDs are a bad idea in principle

The rise of digital identity

The concept of a universal digital identity has gained traction across governments, corporations, and international bodies. Framed as a step towards convenience and inclusion, the idea of replacing physical identification with a secure, verifiable digital system appears modern and efficient.

According to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Digital Identity Framework, this technology is designed to allow individuals to prove who they are online and offline, linking them seamlessly to services such as healthcare, finance, education, and travel.

At first glance, the benefits seem obvious. Fewer documents to manage, faster verification processes, and a reduction in fraud all sound like progress. Yet beneath this promise lies an immense risk. A digital ID is not merely an evolution of the passport or driver’s licence; it is a gateway to an all-encompassing data ecosystem that can monitor, track, and categorise every aspect of a person’s life. Once introduced, it becomes almost impossible to opt out.

Data Broker Removal Service

Data brokers are collecting, aggregating and trading your personal data without you knowing anything about it. We make them remove it.

The illusion of convenience

Digital IDs are being sold to the public as a tool of empowerment, a way to give citizens more control over their personal data. In theory, you could use one digital credential to access banking, book flights, pay taxes, visit the doctor, or prove your vaccination status. In practice, that centralisation of data means every interaction is logged, analysed, and potentially shared.

The WEF model positions digital ID as a “trust anchor”, a single source through which your identity can be verified across sectors. However, centralisation always creates vulnerability. Unlike a physical ID that can be lost or replaced, a compromised digital identity could expose your entire life at once. One breach could reveal everything from medical records to travel history and financial details. In cybersecurity terms, it is a single point of failure at a global scale.

A recent example in the UK illustrates how digital security is already being eroded in subtle ways. According to developers, Apple’s once-strong encryption features have been weakened under government pressure to allow authorities access to certain user data in the name of “national security”. When one company’s privacy settings can be changed by legislative demand, it raises a critical question: what happens when the same pressure is applied to a universal digital identity system?

The risk of mass surveillance

There are two serious technical threats: the disabling of end-to-end encryption and the rise of “chat control”. Chat control refers to software that monitors every keystroke and message on a device, using artificial intelligence to flag content that could be deemed suspicious. While this is often justified as a measure against terrorism or child exploitation, the same technology can easily be turned towards political dissent, journalism, or social activism.

When combined with digital IDs, this becomes the foundation of a comprehensive surveillance network. Every digital transaction, communication, and movement could be tied directly to a verifiable identity. Governments or corporations with access to this system could build detailed behavioural profiles, categorising individuals by risk level, social activity, or even ideology.

The WEF’s framework claims that digital identity systems must be “inclusive, trustworthy, and human-centred”. Yet history repeatedly shows that when surveillance tools exist, they are eventually abused. From East Germany’s Stasi files to modern facial recognition databases in authoritarian states, technology built to “protect” often ends up controlling.

From convenience to control

Proponents of digital IDs argue that privacy concerns can be managed through decentralisation and encryption. However, real-world examples demonstrate that the line between convenience and control blurs quickly.

The introduction of China’s social credit system began with the same logic: a central database linking citizens to services, built on the foundation of digital verification. Over time, it evolved into a tool for enforcing social conformity restricting travel, education, and employment for those deemed “untrustworthy”.

A universal digital ID could become the backbone of a similar system anywhere in the world. Governments could use it to automatically deduct taxes, monitor carbon footprints, or suspend access to services for non-compliance with regulations. Even in democracies, the temptation to expand surveillance powers in the name of safety is difficult to resist.

The pandemic showed how rapidly emergency measures can become permanent infrastructure. Vaccine passports, contact-tracing apps, and digital certificates were introduced as temporary health measures, but they established the technical and legal groundwork for broader digital identity systems. Once implemented, such systems rarely disappear.

The technical dangers explained

From a software perspective, digital IDs present two fundamental issues. The first is data aggregation. A digital ID system requires constant communication between multiple databases, banking, healthcare, insurance, education, and travel.

Each connection point creates an opportunity for data leakage or interception. Unlike traditional IDs, where information is siloed, digital IDs rely on interoperability, which inherently increases the attack surface for hackers or malicious insiders.

The second issue is algorithmic categorisation. Systems that track user behaviour must use machine learning to analyse and predict actions. This means your digital ID could be tagged with behavioural scores, how you spend, what you read, who you associate with, or what opinions you share online. Those scores could then be used to restrict access to services or opportunities, all without transparent oversight.

This is what the developer in the transcript warned about. “Chat control”, is already in use in several jurisdictions, monitoring private messages in the name of safety. Once such tools are combined with digital identity, surveillance becomes automatic and inescapable.

Privacy is not a privilege

The argument for digital IDs often rests on the assumption that only those with something to hide would object. This logic is flawed. Privacy is not about secrecy; it is about autonomy. It allows individuals to think, speak, and act without the constant fear of observation or misinterpretation. In societies that value freedom, privacy serves as a buffer between citizens and the state.

If digital identity becomes mandatory, that buffer disappears. The government or its partners could know where you are, what you buy, what you search for, and even how you feel, based on the tone and frequency of your digital interactions. This level of visibility would give any authority an unprecedented ability to shape behaviour through incentives and penalties.

In a dictatorship, such a system would be the ultimate instrument of control. By linking identity to access, a regime could instantly isolate dissidents by freezing digital IDs, blocking travel, or cutting off financial resources. Unlike traditional policing, this would require no physical intervention. Control would be exercised through software updates.

The global push for digital identity

The WEF, the United Nations, and several national governments have all expressed support for digital ID systems under the banner of financial inclusion and public safety. India’s Aadhaar programme, for instance, now covers over a billion citizens and is required for accessing many public services. The European Union is developing its own digital wallet, while the Caribbean and Latin America have seen early-stage discussions about regional ID systems tied to banking and migration.

These initiatives share a common theme: integration. Once your ID links to financial, health, and social platforms, it becomes impossible to separate one aspect of your life from another. Even if initial participation is voluntary, exclusion from essential services will eventually make it mandatory in practice.

The WEF acknowledges that “digital identity is a key enabler of the Fourth Industrial Revolution”. That statement reveals the broader agenda. The goal is not merely to verify identity but to merge human activity with digital governance, allowing for real-time monitoring and behavioural management on a planetary scale.

The illusion of safety

Supporters of digital IDs often argue that advanced encryption and blockchain technology will ensure safety. However, no system is immune to coercion. Encryption only protects data from unauthorised access, it does not prevent authorised abuse. If a government or corporation holds the encryption keys, privacy becomes a matter of policy, not technology.

Moreover, once biometric data such as fingerprints, facial scans, or DNA are linked to digital IDs, they cannot be changed. A hacked password can be reset, but stolen biometric data is permanent. In cybersecurity terms, it represents the highest possible value target.

#1 Password Manager & Vault App with Single-Sign On & MFA Solutions

Go beyond saving passwords with the best password manager! Generate strong passwords and store them in a secure vault. Now with single-sign on (SSO) and adaptive MFA solutions that integrate with over 1,200 apps.

What a free society must consider

The question is not whether digital IDs can work, technologically, they can. The real issue is whether they should. A world where every person’s identity is tied to a centralised system may be efficient, but it is also fragile and inherently coercive. When access to basic rights depends on digital compliance, liberty becomes conditional.

The better path forward is one of digital minimalism: systems that verify without tracking, and authentication models that preserve anonymity where possible. Trust should come from accountability and transparency, not from forced compliance.

Digital IDs promise convenience, but history warns that convenience is often the first step towards control. Once citizens surrender their autonomy for efficiency, they rarely get it back.

____________________