Let Us Have a Talk About Digital ID’s

The recent discussion around vaccine passports being introduced – predominantly through technological means – seems to have taken hold of the entire world in this stage of COVID-19 pandemic. My recollection – from what I observe in media – is that this is widely rejected by the people of many nations given the massive protests that broke out over digital passports in the UK, France, Greece, and Canada; not to mention the many government officials who were against it in the beginning, almost overnight changing their tune. It does seem odd on how quickly it all changed, perhaps it was the media rhetoric around how France’s vax pass was a ‘success’ due to declining cases; however, comparable countries surrounding France with no current vaccine passport were doing equally as good, if not better like Spain and Sweden. COVID-19 and vaccinations aside, this move towards a technological transformation of identification has been moving fast in recent weeks, almost as if it was planned.

 I will not get conspiratorial, because there is no conspiracy behind it…it actually was planned.

The concept of digital identification relating to government documents, payment systems, health, and social media have been around for quite some time now, and are just beginning its introduction on a larger scale – no “psyop”, out in the open for everyone to find. Early reports started in 2011 with the International Standards Organization (ISO) introducing a plan of merging identification with the increase in technology and those individual identities are inextricably connected to devices. In Davos, 2016; Deloitte Group introduced the concept of digital identity as the “collection” of attributes one has that connect to their identity such as fiscal, health, and societal identity that make up the individual.

This of course leads to the ID2020 meetings in 2018, held by the United Nations creating the Alliance Manifesto on digital ID. Here are the top three rules for the manifesto:

1. The ability to prove one’s identity is a fundamental and universal human right.
2. We live in a digital era. Individuals need a trusted, verifiable way to prove who they are, both in the physical world and online.
3. Over 1 billion people worldwide are unable to prove their identity through any recognized means. As such, they are without the protection of law, and are unable to access basic services, participate as a citizen or voter, or transact in the modern economy. Most of those affected are children and adolescents, and many are refugees, forcibly displaced, or stateless persons.

This standard, in the case of my nation, led to a white paper produced by the Canadian Bankers Association in 2018 outlining Canada’s digital ID future and how to move Canada forward. Thus, leading to circumstances now with digital ID for medication being introduced along with online forms of debit cards and other activities.

Now this may seem like information overload, so let’s take a step back for one minute to ask some important questions:

1. Was democracy used in this path of digital ID?
2. Who decides identity?
3. Why is this being done?

To answer the first question, it would seem there is no democracy here, as there was no collective vote through sovereign nations to conduct this – largely finance organizations, banks, NGO’s, and IGO’s played the biggest role in the fostering and implementing of digital ID. One might argue, the citizens voted for the leaders of nations who then attend meetings held by IGO’s, NGO’s, banks, and international finance to discuss policy for the future. But it seems firmly in the hands of these organizations to be used as a lever for policy on a governmental level. After all, this is nothing new on the topic of NGO influence.

Second question, we go back to the ID2020 manifesto. “The ability to prove one’s identity is a fundamental and universal human right”. This is an interesting statement considering there is a clear truism with a predicate that is questionable. Yes, one’s identity is a fundamental and universal human right (as in a foundation of ones right to autonomy are recognized) they decide how they manage that identity. Such as, they can say their identity is anonymous, and not be burdened to prove it to anyone. Thus, to prove is inherently contradictory to the fundamental right of human identity. As the word prove acts as a predicate to provide identity to an independent person or thing. If we accept the Cartesian truism of a being: “I think, therefore, I am”, no one needs to prove that you can think. Ergo, the proof is moot on the topic of identity. This phrase of prove almost seems pernicious, considering the globalized framework would suggest: ‘without proof, are you even a person?’

Why is this being done? This question goes hand in hand with what is the cost/benefit analysis? WITHOUT getting conspiratorial, I’ll go by what the NGO/IGO claim as it connects to embracing technology, leveraging technology, and fostering a more global and open society as digital ID’s enhance access rather than hinder it for political, social, and economic purposes. Do digital ID’s provide this? One could agree, but others would argue a technology base for encompassing access makes way for data collection and mining from multinational corporations that make you less autonomous. One does not need to look far at the examples of this, as shown in the film The Social Dilemma and the ad data that is collected on individuals; also, how a lot of these monopolistic tech giants are partners with NGO’s.

So, what is the cost/benefit? are we willing to give up our technological freedom for the benefit of access and safety? Did we even have technological freedom to begin with? Is there an opt out? As autonomy is on the forefront of this push, can I choose not to be apart of it? I get concerned when hearing about China’s social credit system – primarily run through technological identification – who decides what is considered a good or bad citizen? Who decides a hierarchy between two good citizens, who is ‘more good’ thus gets more access through technology? Who creates the rules for this steadfast movement into a technology identification world? We are already seeing a health hierarchy between vaccinated and unvaccinated for COVID, will there be a hierarchy for banking, credit, citizenry, employment especially with this collective move to digital ID?

Moving forward it is important to take a deeper look into the implications of digital ID and the motives of them being implemented. What is clear is the blurred line between privacy and exposure in our modern day – especially the continued enhancement of social media – and one must continue to ask questions on this blurred line and its benefit to humans. Time will tell, but it’s moving fast.