reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Life is about to change for every Australian. This bill will be misused because this bill is written to be misused. No hiding behind anonymous accounts or faulted false addresses. You can expect a knock on your door at home, work, or school as we're seeing happening in other countries with digital identity already in The government knows digital ID will be compulsory by the device of preventing access to government services, banking services, air travel, and major purchases for any Australian who does not have a digital ID. The digital ID will in effect create a live data file of your movements, purchases, accounts, and associates containing reference to every piece of data being held in the private and government sector as a first step in a wider agenda.

The European Union has reached an agreement on implementing digital identity, which includes the digital euro. This development is concerning as it goes against promises made to protect privacy and freedom. Experts have warned against this move, highlighting the potential risks. However, there is still an opportunity to voice opposition by emailing your Member of European Parliament (MEP) and expressing your disagreement.

Speaker argues digital ID is being pushed with investment to force voluntary adoption, and that without it, it will fail and is the cornerstone of UN Agenda 2030; programmable, surveillable money and digital ecosystems depend on it. They compare to vaccine passports and urge planning to avoid compliance, like avoiding vaccine mandates. In the US, conservatives are framed as solutions to illegal migration and voter fraud; biometric IDs pitched as addressing cybercrime and societal ills. Digital ID is seen as essential to social credit scores and Orwellian designs. The speaker says convenience is used to ensnare people into compliance: opt-in smartphones, voting for two evils. The carrot approach may come with a stick; people have power and should act locally to opt out, starting with no to digital ID to avoid biometric surveillance state, predictive policing, precrime, and health care prevention measures and emergency use authorizations. We can opt out.

Volgens Speaker 1 zijn veel mensen ervan overtuigd dat de CBDC onlosmakelijk verbonden is met een digital ID, maar dat is volgens hem niet zo. Speaker 2 legt uit dat de “digital currency” een wallet voor geld betreft, terwijl de EUDI (het digitale paspoort van Europa) een wallet is voor credentials: bewijzen. Met die EUDI kan je inloggen en jezelf bewijzen aan een andere partij, bijvoorbeeld dat je ouder dan 18 bent of dat je een geldig rijbewijs hebt, zonder dat die partij de informatie hoeft te kennen. De uitkomst is een cryptografisch bewijs voor authenticatie/identificatie, zoals bij inloggen op een website. Over het technisch ontwerp zegt Speaker 2 dat het als architect een prachtig systeem is en “helemaal goed in elkaar zit.” In het gesprek wordt ook benadrukt dat er “geen geld” in de EUDI zit: het is een wallet waar geen centrale koppeling met geld of met de CBDC per se in zit. Er wordt een vergelijking gemaakt met een fysieke portefeuille: Speaker 2 beschrijft dat hij zijn EUDI-wallet gebruikte om bijvoorbeeld te betalen via zijn ING-rekening, terwijl er in elk geval identiteits- en bewijsdocumenten zoals rijbewijs in zitten. Speaker 0 stipt aan dat “wallet” voor hem betekent dat er echt geld in zit. De discussie gaat daardoor over betekenis: er wordt herhaald dat een wallet een plek is waar je dingen bewaart/verwerkt, en dat de EUDI-wallet vooral credentials bevat. Speaker 2 noemt dat je met die credentials kunt bewijzen wie je bent, dat je een diploma hebt, en dat je ingelogd bent, zonder dat er een centraal punt tussen zit dat kan volgen. Volgens Speaker 2 is dit een oplossing tegen surveillance die voortkomt uit bestaande inlogmethoden via partijen als Google en big data, waarbij wordt gevolgd waar je inlogt en hoe lang. Speaker 2 vergelijkt de werking met cash: net zoals geld van hand naar hand wordt overgegeven, worden credentials van hand naar hand of van app naar app overgedragen, met “geen centrale database” ertussen. Hij noemt het daarom “cash identificatie.” Op de vraag of de CBDC in de wallet ligt, antwoordt Speaker 2 dat de CBDC niet erin ligt zoals bedoeld, en dat het gaat om wat de wallet “pakt” uit de verzameling die je hebt (zoals een fysieke wallet met passen en cash). Tot slot illustreert Speaker 2 dat “wallet” ook kan betekenen dat het simpelweg een plek is waar je zaken bewaart of verwerkt, bijvoorbeeld een “reiswallet” waarin reispapieren en EHBO-papieren voor een reiziger werden verzameld.

Wir wissen oft nicht, was mit unseren Daten passiert, wenn wir digitale Identitäten erstellen oder uns über Plattformen anmelden. Die Kommission plant eine sichere europäische digitale Identität, die es uns ermöglicht, die Kontrolle über den Datenaustausch zu behalten, vom Steuerzahlen bis zum Fahrradmieten. Translation: We often do not know what happens to our data when creating digital identities or signing up through platforms. The Commission is planning a secure European digital identity that allows us to control data exchange, from paying taxes to renting bicycles.

The speaker argues against digital IDs, listing 20 concerns: functionality creep into immigration, healthcare, banking, voting, driving, and travel; loss of anonymity; government overreach; it won't stop illegal immigration; it would rely on phones; enforcement could be undermined by cash-paying employers; single point of failure; government as the nexus of verification; a state surveillance honeypot; inevitable future abuses by any regime; massive cost and bureaucratic drag; marginalization of those unable or unwilling to comply; UK previously rejected ID cards; examples of failures in other countries (India ANWA, EU database); authoritarian temptations; excuses for illegal immigration and labor; burden shifting to citizens; ratchet effect; not for stated reasons but globalist aims; alternative is zero-knowledge proofs where individuals hold ID; digital IDs from the state are a horrendous idea and must be stopped.

A speaker discusses India's nationwide digital ID system, Aadhaar, and chip away at the assurances given by officials who praised its rollout. The speaker notes that about a week or so earlier, Kirstjarma met with Prime Minister Modi and top officials in India to extol the benefits of digital ID, highlighting Aadhaar and claiming a fabulous nationwide rollout. The speaker then presents a troubling counterpoint: cybercriminals are claiming they have stolen the entire Aadhaar database—describing it as the database of 815,000,000 people with details such as names, addresses, identity confirmations, bank details, and more. According to these claims, the criminals are currently selling the entire database for $80,000 at a time. The speaker acknowledges uncertainty about verification but states that this story is circulating and raises questions about security. The core concern is about how secure the system will be when every facet of a person’s life could be held in one place: passport, driving license, NHS records, criminal records, bank details, every transaction, gas and electricity bills, travel records, flight records, car tax, council tax, and any arrest or hospital appointment information. The speaker asks whether we can trust the people running these systems to keep data secure, given the frequency of data breaches and data thefts, including several large incidents in the past year in the country. The concern is framed as a general warning about the viability of a centralized digital ID system that aggregates extensive personal information, and how well it would function in practice if it were compromised. A specific anecdotal point is raised: India’s example is cited as a real-world instance of the system’s security challenges, with the speaker encouraging listeners to look up the incident. The speaker notes that Star Lord was out in India holding up India as an example of how well the system could work, referencing a perceived contrast between the praise and the security breach claim. The segment closes with a skeptical modulo—“Right, Kia. We believe you.”—casting doubt on official assurances. In summary, the speaker highlights a purported massive data breach claim against India’s Aadhaar system, questions the security of a centralized digital identity that consolidates extensive personal data, and contrasts official praise with concerns about data vulnerability and trust in those who manage such systems.

They're rolling out digital ID even when people don't want it? In The UK, over 2,000,000 people said no. We don't want it. The government's response? We're gonna do it anyway. And now the line is no digital ID, no jobs. They said you will not be able to work in The United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It's as simple as that. Just a reminder, pilot programs always start somewhere and then scale to the rest of the world. Today, it's The UK. Tomorrow, it's where you live. They will market it as if it's for your convenience or your safety, like they are doing now by saying it's to tackle illegal immigration. But once your likelihood is tied to a QR code or a government app, your freedoms can be taken away with the flip of a switch. Now it's just for a job. Soon it will be banking, travel, grocery shopping. You will be completely under control.

This is a new report from Blacklock’s Reporter about the federal push for a national digital ID. The article states that federal regulators yesterday said they are “working to establish digital credentials for the public without parliamentary go ahead.” MPs have repeatedly rejected the introduction of any national electronic digital ID systems as expensive and risky. The notice, shared by Shared Services Canada, the Federal ID Department, says: “Any new system, and here's the kicker, any new system should allow regulators to revoke credentials,” but it did not elaborate, and it did not explain if enrollment would be mandatory. The presenter emphasizes that, despite legislators’ objections, the Liberal government is “quietly going around talking about building a digital ID” that would permit credential revocation, and there is no explanation about enrollment being mandatory. The speaker frames this as part of the Prime Minister’s hidden agenda, suggesting action happens “through the back door, through these, like, sneaky little contract things.” On the political response, the presenter says the Conservative Party will oppose the move. He cites Liberal Bill C-63, described as their “massive censorship bill,” and says he tabled an opposing bill that would “keep Canadians safe online, but quote expressly prohibit the use of a digital ID,” noting that the principle is written into his bill. He highlights Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s opposition to digital IDs, pointing to Poilievre’s 2022 Twitter posts where he said government attempts to impose digital IDs and other intrusive tracking and surveillance are “an attack on our freedom. I will end them.” The presenter notes Poilievre has continued to tweet about the issue and has a petition linked on his Twitter page, with the message that “common sense conservatives will ban mandatory digital IDs, full stop.” He asserts that conservatives are fighting this and mentions that the story is not being reported by outlets like CBC. The presenter references ongoing efforts to expose government actions beyond what mainstream media covers, alleging that Trudeau’s censorship bills suppress such stories. He urges viewers to share the video and click subscribe, and mentions a link in the video description to a full breakdown about an investigation his colleague and another MP are asking the Competition Bureau to undertake. In closing, the presenter reiterates that Liberal leadership uses back-channel methods to push agendas, and that the Conservative Party, led by Poilievre, will do everything in its power to stop a mandatory digital ID. The report ends by highlighting the headline: “Fed's proposed national digital ID.”

A discussion centers on a new proposed law, HR 8250, which would require operating system providers to verify the age of any user of an operating system and for other purposes, covering Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android, with open-source Linux considered in the debate. The claim is that this could serve as a Trojan horse to control people through a digital ID system, rather than being merely safety-focused. Speaker 1 references Catherine Austin Fitz, who says that if global elites deploy digital ID systems, they will control all aspects, including health freedoms and financial transactions. She argues that once financial transaction control is in place, all protections in health and food freedoms could be negated, and a 100% digital system with a digital ID and programmable money would allow authorities to dictate health decisions, vaccine status, gender-transition decisions for children, and other policies by turning off funds. Speaker 0 notes that Fitz is not hyperbolic and mentions Austin Steinbart, founder of the Quantum Party of America, who is joined by Speaker 0 to discuss the issue further. Speaker 2 (Austin Steinbart) asserts that the HR 8250 proposal is a disaster and goes beyond a digital ID concept by embedding age verification into the core of every device. He says the bill is six pages long and delegates enforcement to the FTC, creating ambiguity about whether biometrics, ID cards, or face scans would be used, leaving the mechanism up to the executive branch. He points out that the proposal could coordinate with companies like Apple (potentially via Face ID) and Microsoft to embed verification, while raising questions about how open-source Linux distributions would be forced to comply. He notes that Linux is open-source and typically users have root access, enabling workarounds or removal of such core files, and questions how a retrospective integration would work on devices like POS systems or hotel front-desk computers. Speaker 0 asks how the implementation would occur and whether the digital ID is the core objective beyond age verification. Speaker 2 confirms that the core goal is a universal digital ID across platforms, tying to privacy and cybersecurity concerns by requiring every service to interact with core OS files to verify age, with California already moving toward age verification that apps and websites would rely on. Speaker 0 links this to a broader move toward a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and a digital ID, quoting a sound bite from Catherine Austin Fitz about health identifiers affecting travel and other activities. Speaker 3 (a figure from the World Economic Forum) is cited, emphasizing tokenization of financial assets and the rapid rollout of a digital wallet and digitized currencies globally, with a critique that many countries are unprepared for such changes. Speaker 2 clarifies that blockchain or tokenization per se isn’t inherently bad, but concerns arise when centralized actors with anti-freedom aims design and control the system, shaping speech and policy. They discuss the potential benefits of tokenized assets in theory, while warning that centralized control could enable censorship and restricted financial activity. Speaker 0 ends by urging viewers to contact members of Congress to oppose HR 8250, urging them to “burn this thing down,” and thanks Speaker 2 for the analysis.

Speaker contends digital ID would bundle everything you have under one, centrally governed ID that can be shut off at will. He uses a World Economic Forum wheel to claim that health care, financial services, food and sustainability, travel, humanitarian response, e-commerce, social media, e-government, taxes, voting, telecommunications, and smart cities would be encompassed and controlled. Dangers cited include overriding existing authority—so that a speeding ticket could lead to cutting off your cell phone and bank access. Right now health cards are governed by the Department of Health, but digital ID would bypass that. You would not be able to access your bank or book travel without it, and CBDCs would enable nearly total monitoring. He also cites Canada's trucker protests where bank accounts were cut, calling such actions illegal.

Mike Schellenberger argues against digital IDs: "We don't need digital IDs for any of those things. The United States just stopped illegal migration without digital IDs." He says centralizing data would undermine cybersecurity: "Having separate logins ... ensures that if one of them is hacked, they aren't all hacked." He warns that "if the digital ID were to actually link social media vaccine records and bank accounts, that would allow governments to censor and control the population." He notes Kirstarmer: "every working person must have a digital ID or Brit card." Real IDs contain embedded microchips; MDLs are digital IDs; Gavin Newsom moved driver's licenses to Apple and Google wallets. Ellison: "The secret is to get all and get all of that data in one place." China’s 2019 social credit system; UK Big Brother Watch warns it could be gateway to surveillance. Starmer: "Digital ID will make it tougher to work illegally" and YouGov: 42% in favor, 45% against; Gates documentary on AI censorship; "The Starmer government's digital IDs should be a wake up call to all of us."

The European Union has reached an agreement on the implementation of digital identity, which is concerning news. Commissioner Breton has also mentioned the possibility of introducing the digital euro, or Central Bank Digital Currency. This connection between digital identity and digital currency is worrying, as it goes against previous promises and has raised concerns among privacy and security experts. However, there is still a chance to voice opposition to this development by contacting your Member of European Parliament (MEP) and expressing your disagreement with this tool.

The European Union has reached an agreement on the implementation of digital identity, which is concerning news. Commissioner Breton has also mentioned the possibility of introducing the digital euro, or Central Bank Digital Currency. This connection between digital identity and digital currency is worrying, as it goes against previous promises and has raised concerns among privacy and security experts. However, there is still a chance to oppose this development by contacting your Member of European Parliament (MEP) and expressing your opposition to this tool.

You don't need a mandatory digital ID to live your life, travel, or buy things. The push for a global digital ID is driven by those who want constant surveillance and control over you. With a managed security digital ID, they can use excuses like a viral pandemic to force you to do things or restrict your freedom. Central bank digital currencies eliminate the need for traditional banks and allow for precise tracking of your purchases and interactions. Algorithms could be used to limit your access to certain goods based on your location. This control will be in the hands of malicious individuals, and there will be no democratic oversight. Their goal is to restrict your mobility, leave you cold and hungry, and create an unlivable world without freedom.

Several speakers present a cohesive, alarmist view of a global move toward centralized, technocratic governance: - A long-standing desire to control others is fueling a push toward globalization and centralization of power in unelected officials at supranational bodies. They claim the aim is to have all the world’s resources “in their pocket.” - The larger project is described as an attempt to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with a global technocracy. A “coup” is alleged, with the argument that rules could replace currency, creating a system of control without money. - The situation is likened to an inverted prison: people may seem free to roam, but “everything you want to access is behind lock and key.” The potential for social control is described as gigantic and potentially irreversible. - The plan reportedly includes commandeering land, reducing farming, radically changing the food we eat, transforming the electricity supply, and dictating how it is used, while replacing currency with a system of credits. All three strategies are said to be premised on a climate-crisis narrative centered on carbon dioxide. - One speaker disputes the climate-crisis premise, stating they do not think there is a climate crisis and that the government pushes a catastrophic story; another adds that no single science paper proves conclusively that humans control all or most of the climate. - Europe is criticized for a “mad dash towards net zero,” described as economic suicide that deliberately impoverishes ordinary people and de-industrializes Europe, raising questions about what is being saved if it’s being paved over. - A global war on agriculture is claimed, with many farms selling up and concerns about looming food shortages. There is a suggestion that shifting people from “real food” to “pharma food” would enable control through publicly traded stocks. - The speakers call the movement “the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world” and, more broadly, a blueprint and action plan. They warn that life on Earth will be radically changed and that everything will be monitored, with environmental consequences of every human action. - A chilling point is made that once a digital ID is in place, “it's game over for humanity,” and that the general population cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision they describe. Overall, the discussion centers on a perceived coordinated effort to centralize power globally, erode traditional democracy, redefine currency, reshape agriculture and energy systems, and surveil all human activity under a climate-justified technocracy.

I just left the negotiations on digital identity, and I have concerning news. The member states and the European Parliament reached an agreement, meaning the digital identity will soon be implemented in the EU. Commissioner Breton announced that we now have the digital identity wallet, which he intends to fill with the digital euro, or central bank digital currency. This is troubling, as they previously assured us there would be no connection between the two. Privacy and security experts have warned that this development poses significant risks to our privacy and freedom.

Speaker described India's digital ID program as a cautionary example of how tying essential needs to a single ID can fail catastrophically. More than a billion people were forced into a system that linked food rations, pensions, and even hospital access to a digital ID, with criminal networks learning how to hack and manipulate biometric data. The core problems were practical and systemic. When fingerprints didn’t match or when hackers swapped someone’s identity, people were locked out of survival. Entire families were denied food, and in one state at least two dozen people starved to death after being cut off from rations. Some elderly pensioners went months with no income as hospitals turned them away because their ID had been cloned. The scenario described paints a situation where being sick, hungry, or elderly could be life-threatening if a glitch or a hacker interfered with one’s access to vital services. The speaker emphasized that this was not a minor glitch. Organized criminal groups exploited the system to steal benefits, reroute funds, and sell fake identities. At one point, millions of fake accounts were uncovered, used to siphon money meant for the poor. The system, marketed as secure, ended up creating a black market for identities in which the poor suffered and criminals thrived. The overarching message is presented as a warning about the real dangers of digital ID, focusing on control and exploitation rather than safety. Once everything a person needs to live—food, money, medicine—is tied to a single ID, all it takes is an error or a criminal to cut you off. The India experiment is described as showing what happens when such a system is deployed at scale: hunger and deprivation, alongside a thriving illicit market for manipulated identities.

Speaker 0: The speaker argues that digital ID is bad and that the government is coming for children by announcing digital ID cards for 13-year-olds. They claim this is not a good thing because children have the right to grow up in privacy, to come of age, to explore, to experiment, and to make mistakes, with everything they do logged, tracked, and documented into a device that will follow them for the rest of their life and potentially discriminate against them. They say digital ID will document things like skill reports, mental health issues, behavioral issues, accomplishments, and failures, and that having so much information about a person before adulthood would make it easy to build systems that profile people based on socioeconomic background, behavior, and psychology, determining what type of citizen they are before they have a chance at life. They posit that as a parent you raise your children with boundaries, ethics, and moral, but the government has its own ethics, morals, and boundaries. They claim the government will have the power to give a child a bus pass, a bank account, access into entertainment venues, and a work permit when they turn 16, and the government can decide what makes a child applicable for that. They ask who should raise the child— you or the state. They argue that assigning a QR code to enter a playground and another to go skateboarding normalizes surveillance as safety for children, and that future generations could be convinced to accept more surveillance and control because they have been conditioned since childhood to see it as normal. They acknowledge pushback, noting some may call the concerns exaggerated, but they insist there is no reason to think digital ID will be used ethically, and they insist digital ID is forever. They challenge the idea that the last 500 years of humanity justify the next 500 years as superior, and say the government cannot provide a solid explanation for this institutional change. They dismiss migration as “bollocks” and claim the only justification given is convenience. The core claim is that the refusal to provide a straight answer hides a motive: control, plain and simple. The speaker concludes that there is an opportunity to change history in a positive way, and that opportunity starts with individuals choosing not to comply and saying no, for the sake of their kids and future generations.

Signing up for digital ID will be the last important decision you make, as it will replace your identity with a QR code linked to editable resources, including vaccination status. Digital IDs will only remain valid if you comply with conditions, such as receiving recommended or mandated vaccines, which are designed to harm you. Without a valid digital ID, transactions will be refused, and access to goods will be denied. This system extends to controlling internet usage and movement. Refusing to sign up is crucial to prevent this "digital gulag," even if it means facing consequences like losing benefits or employment. Deferring the decision and resisting collectively can defeat this system, as demonstrated by the NHS jab mandate reversal. Refuse to sign up, even at the risk of losing access to money or employment.

Key claims cited include: "It will stop illegal migration." "The United States just stopped illegal migration without digital IDs." "If the digital ID were to actually link social media vaccine records and bank accounts, that would allow governments to censor and control the population." "Real IDs contain embedded microchips that bring us one step closer to digital IDs." "Those mobile driver's licenses or MDLs are digital IDs, and they're just one more link in the chain." "A YouGov poll found that UK opinion towards digital IDs was 42% in favor and 45% against." "The good news is that the backlash to the digital IDs appears to be strong and growing, and real corruption is on display."

You don't need a mandatory digital ID to live your life, travel, or buy things. The push for a global digital ID is driven by those who want to monitor your every move and control your actions. With a managed security digital ID, authorities can use excuses like a viral pandemic to enforce vaccinations or restrict your movements. Central bank digital currencies eliminate the need for traditional banks and allow for precise tracking of your purchases and interactions. Algorithms could be used to limit your access to goods based on distance or other criteria. The control of this database and its algorithms could be in the hands of malicious individuals, making it impossible to resist their restrictions. This loss of freedom is unacceptable.

Digital ID: what could possibly go wrong? The transcript recalls Kirstyama’s recent visit to India to meet Modi and top officials, promoting India’s nationwide digital ID system called Aadhaar. It then presents a provocative claim: cyber criminals are reportedly saying they have stolen the entire Aadhaar database—815,000,000 people's details, including names, addresses, identity confirmations, bank details, and more—and are allegedly selling the database for $80,000 at a time. It notes uncertainty about verification but says the story is circulating. The speaker emphasizes concerns about security and the practicality of such a system: if every aspect of a person’s life—passport, driving license, NHS records, criminal record, bank details, all transactions, bills, travel and flight records, vehicle taxes, council taxes, hospital appointments, arrest records, and other personal data—are stored in one place, how safe and secure can it be? The question is raised of whether the people running these systems can be trusted to protect data, given ongoing data breaches and thefts, including several large incidents in the past year within the country. There’s a rhetorical comparison to India’s example, suggesting that this is a test case for the security of a highly centralized digital ID system. The speaker notes that StarMove had previously used India as an example of how well such a system could work, implying skepticism about that portrayal with the closing line, “The ironic thing is that StarMove was just out there holding them up as an example of how well the system could work. Yeah. Right, Kia. We believe you.” Key points: - Aadhaar is India’s nationwide digital ID system. - Alleged theft of 815,000,000 Aadhaar records, with claims of selling the data in chunks for $80,000; verification of this claim is uncertain. - The aggregation of extensive personal data in one system raises concerns about security and trust in the guardians of the data. - Data breaches are frequent, including notable incidents in the past year. - The India example is presented as a cautionary reference, contrasting with prior praise from StarMove.

Independent journalist Michael Schellenberger has been digging into the digital ID issue. He just released a lengthy piece on Substack called Public. He joins us with his thoughts. Michael says: The argument that digital IDs help thwart illegal immigration, ID fraud, streamline health care services sounds fantastic. But what’s the problem? Michael responds: Hey, great to be with you. Yeah. Another conspiracy theory that has started coming true. We saw this announcement in September. The World Economic Forum had been pushing digital IDs, the United Nations, the European Union, Britain. Of course, the really terrifying example is China, which uses digital IDs and a social credit score to control speech and to control what people think and say online. It could come in a lot of different ways. They’ll start voluntary, then they’ll make it mandatory. They’ll have rewards, and then they’ll have punishments. It’s quite terrifying. And when you listen to what the advocates for digital IDs say, it’s terrifying. And, you know, Laura, one thing I learned from this last round of investigations is that this is a huge cybersecurity threat. The idea that, I mean, imagine if you get hacked in one of the many websites that you log into. Imagine everything suddenly being hacked because it’s all centralized in a single place. That cybersecurity threat alone ought to be enough to kill the digital ID. But, again, this is potentially digital totalitarianism.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is advocating for digital IDs, claiming they can boost emerging economies. However, Nigel Farage warns that this is about global government control and the redistribution of wealth. Von der Leyen wants a digital ID card or app enforced by the early 2030s, with France and Germany already trialing it. This ID card would contain personal information such as date of birth, gender, eye color, height, vaccine status, and financial status. Farage cautions against the dangers of this initiative, as it could lead to a Chinese-style social credit system and the loss of individual freedoms. He emphasizes the importance of democratic nation states cooperating and trading together, rather than surrendering sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats.