TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker is discussing the World Economic Forum (WEF) Agile Nations Charter that the Government of Canada signed in November 2020 and how it relates to digital credentials and other technologies. The speaker notes that the prime minister did not tell Canadians that this would usher in the fourth industrial revolution by changing how policy is made in Canada. After outlining several Agile Nations projects—Coordinating National Standards Body of Agile Nations, digital credentials, preloaded air cargo targeting, consumer connecting products, experimental approaches, anticipatory regulation, digital health software devices—the focus is narrowed to digital credentials and related technologies. The Digital Credentials Project is described as being led by Canada under Agile Nations, aiming to make digital trust and digital ID technologies more seamless across borders. It involves workshops, proofs of concept, and pilots. The speaker asserts that there is a lack of transparency surrounding these initiatives and points to concerns about government abuse of centralized personal data. Canadians are presented with a request for the ability to opt out of privacy-intrusive digital IDs, artificial intelligence, and smart technologies. Examples cited to illustrate potential government overreach include the Emergencies Act usage to freeze protesters’ bank accounts and the ArriveCAN app, which the speaker claims discriminated against seniors who lacked smartphones. The central argument is that digital IDs should not be mandatory given past government actions, and that people generally use existing digital means (bank cards, online payments) without government control over all their data. The concern is that a digital ID could enable government surveillance or social-political control, especially if linked with other data such as driving records, health information, banking data, purchases, or even sensitive attributes like religion or political beliefs. The speaker connects digital IDs to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), suggesting that a move to digital IDs could enable CBDCs, which could allow governments to track purchases and impose limits or programmable constraints on spending, travel, or item availability. This leads to questions about ethical frameworks, governance, and safeguards. The absence of transparency, public engagement, or legislation is framed as evidence that the prime minister does not prioritize protecting Canadians from digital ID abuse. Further concerns include the lack of comprehensive privacy legislation to regulate both government and private sector use of digital IDs. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) is described as focusing on businesses, with government roles under-regulated. Bill C-27, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, is noted as addressing privacy only in the private sector, with responsibility shifted to businesses. The speaker argues for a national, overarching framework to protect privacy, rather than pushing obligations onto small businesses. The speaker asserts that the Agile Nations Charter demonstrates liberal government intentions and urges ongoing democratic involvement to prevent executive overreach. Pierre Poilievre is highlighted as listening to concerns and promising that digital IDs will never be mandatory. The message concludes with a call to contact federal representatives to support a federal digital charter that protects Canadians from digital ID abuses by government and corporations.

"my long term personal political view has always been in favor of ID cards." "I supported the last Labour government's introduction of ID cards." "The first bill I've spoken on in Parliament was the ID cards bill, which the then conservative Lib Dem coalition scrapped." "It wasn't in the manifesto." "my other colleagues in government have started this conversation about how we might roll out more digital ID." "I think that a system of digital ID can also help with illegal working, enforcement of other laws as well." "Forgive me, could we be in a situation where everybody would be compelled to have a digital ID at some point?" "Well, the government's position at the moment is to look at digital ID, further rollout."

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.

Your wake up call. The British government is pushing forward with plans for a national digital ID system. They've called it the Brit card and if that name doesn't send a chill down your spine you have not been paying attention. This is about building a centralized state controlled digital identity system that could be used to link your finances, your medical history, your travel movements, your social media activity, even your social activity in real life and more. It's quite frankly a digital dog tag and once it's clipped around your neck, you will not be able to take it off. There are active conversations now about linking spending capabilities to your digital identity. That means if your ID is flagged, limited or suspended, I don't know because maybe you said some hurt words on social media, that will mean you can't access your own money.

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.”

"absolutely convinced that amongst the reasons that people travel through France, which is a safe country, to come to The United Kingdom, amongst the reasons is because it's easier to work in our legal economy than it is in other countries." "Bosses who are prepared to hire people illegally are not asking them for their national insurance card." "You must have ID, mandatory digital ID in order to work because we have to stop illegal working." "It is an automatic collection of the information by the government, so we know exactly who is working in our economy, and it will help us enforce the rules that are there." "I made a pledge that we would do whatever was necessary, pull use whatever tools, were available to deal with illegal migration. I intend to do so."

There's a coordinated global policy push for digital IDs, as the new form of government issued identification credentials. Digital IDs are not really a separate project from CBDCs and this new digital financial system. And UN documentation and also documentation from the Bank of International Settlements, they very overtly state that CBDCs and digital IDs are meant to go together. And without digital IDs, the CBDC digital finance system cannot exist. One of the reasons it can't exist without that is because of the KYC functionality built into this digital financial system. They have to know who you are. They give you a unique identifier, a digital ID, and it's inherently tied to a digital wallet. It's called building blocks. It involves refugees scanning their irises.

The benefits are clear. Digital ID will make our interactions with each other and with the state faster, cheaper and more reliable. It will allow us to judge who has a right to be in our country and who doesn't, and so solves one of the major challenges of immigration. Facial recognition can now spot suspects in real time from live video, tracking organised criminals at borders, in public spaces, even helping find missing people. In London, live facial recognition led to three sixty arrests by the Met Police between January and October 2024, just in a pilot project. It boosts response times and helps identify suspects quickly in busy places like train stations and events. Live video from body cams and CCTVs can be used to provide real time advice to officers from a command centre or deploy resources to where they're most needed.

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."

Today, Kirstjarma made a speech where he said that he is going to be mandating digital ID for all of The UK public. You won't be able to work without digital ID. Digital ID will be linked to a social credit score. Your social credit score will go down if you are a bad citizen. You'll be told you can't do things like buy a plane ticket. If you don't wanna be a government slave for the rest of your life, you need to say no to digital ID. The NHS tried to mandate COVID vaccines to all NHS workers, but enough of them said no, and that was dropped. They couldn't do it. If everybody stands up and says no to digital ID together, they won't be able to roll it out. This is your warning. If you don't wanna be a government slave, say no to digital ID. Thank you.

Many of us warned that COVID was the catalyst for Agenda twenty thirty, a UN driven plan to put the entire earth into a digital surveillance grid that would mean the introduction of digital currency, digital ID, a social credit system where your online activities are directly linked to your ability to access money. Australia introduced a voluntary digital ID in May 2024, and as of December, just over a year later, Australians will not even be able to do a Google search without verifying themselves online. Now in lockstep, The UK has announced they will also be pressing ahead with digital ID. Digital ID will give you access to government services. One option under consideration would give digital IDs to all people legally entitled to reside in Britain, whether citizens or those with legal immigration status, the Financial Times said.

The world is moving towards digital identity verification in various sectors like education and healthcare. We need to embrace this change and stay ahead or risk being left behind. As former politicians, we can acknowledge this more easily than those currently running for office. The government needs to refocus on these issues as they will shape our future. The US has the revolutionary Inflation Reduction Act, which will put them at the forefront of technology and climate change. China is leveraging data for advancements in AI, while Europe is playing catch-up. Britain needs to find its place in this evolving landscape. These are real-world developments, not utopian ideals.

Speaker 0 announces a policy: 'Made today, I am announcing this government will make a new free of charge digital ID mandatory for the right to work by the end of this parliament.' He adds, 'Let me spell that out.' The policy states, 'You will not be able to work in The United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.' He concludes, 'It's as simple as that.' The speaker conveys an intent to require digital ID at no cost, tying it to employment rights by the end of the current parliamentary term, and asserts that absence of digital ID would bar work in the UK, framed as a straightforward requirement.

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.

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."

Many people are a little worried about what will happen to them with the digital euro. Can you encourage them? Why is the digital euro good for people like you and me? The digital currency, where it has been piloted, and there is only one which is clearly now launched in in a very small country, but it is piloted on a fairly large scale in in China, is of use and of service to all citizens. So it is not something that is good for the elite or is good for the young or is good for some versus others. If it is well done and if it is well implemented, it would be of service to all citizens.

Breaking news: Digital ID will be made law for all adults in an effort to tackle small boats. Downing Street believes a mandatory ID card system will help stop illegal immigrants working. Political correspondent Mari Arora notes this has been discussed for years; Tony Blair has advocated it. Sky News understands there will be announcement from the prime minister on mandatory ID cards, the Brit card. It will be mandatory for all adults in the UK and can be used via a smartphone app to verify status for work or renting. The plan is all about immigration. This is all about trying to tackle small boats crossings. France has an ID card system, and Kirst Ammer has been persuaded of the benefits of a digital ID card system. The question remains how much impact it will have on small boats crossings; if it reduces pull factors, Labour will be disappointed.

Have digital ID. It's been taken up on a voluntary basis in huge numbers, not least because it means that you can access your own money, make payments so much more easily than is available with others. So I think now we need to go out and make that case of the

Here in India, the I think it's a billion people have digital ID. It's been taken up on a voluntary basis in huge numbers, not least because it means that you can access your own money, make payments so much more easily than is available with others. So I think now we need to go out and make that case of the huge benefits that this will bring. There needs to be a national debate about it. And I think that the more people see the benefits that come with this, the more, as has happened in other countries, people say, that will make my life easier, and therefore, I want to get on with it.

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.