Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Digital ID

The End of Online Anonymity? Australia’s New Law Pushes Digital ID for Everyone To Ban Kids From Social Media

Published

11 months ago

11 minute read

 By Christina Maas

Australia is gearing up to roll out some of the world’s strictest social media rules, with Parliament having pushed through legislation to bar anyone under 16 from creating accounts on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. It’s a sweeping measure but, as the ink dries, the questions are piling up.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government and the opposition teamed up on Thursday to pass the new restrictions with bipartisan enthusiasm. And why not? Opinion polls show a whopping 77% of Australians are behind the idea. Protecting kids online is an easy sell which is why it’s often used to usher in the most draconian of laws. Still, the devil—as always—is in the details.

Proof of Age, But at What Cost?
Here’s the crux of the new law: to use social media, Australians will need to prove they’re old enough. That means showing ID, effectively ending the anonymity that’s long been a feature (or flaw, depending on your perspective) of the online experience. In theory, this makes sense—keeping kids out of online spaces designed for adults is hardly controversial. But in practice, it’s like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

For one, there’s no clear blueprint for how this will work. Will social media platforms require passports and birth certificates at sign-up? Who’s going to handle and secure this flood of personal information? The government hasn’t offered much clarity and, until it does, the logistics look shaky.

And then there’s the matter of enforcement. Teenagers are famously tech-savvy, and history has shown that banning them from a platform is more of a speed bump than a roadblock. With VPNs, fake IDs, and alternate accounts already standard fare for navigating internet restrictions, how effective can this law really be?

The Hasty Debate
Critics on both sides of Parliament flagged concerns about the speed with which this legislation moved forward. But the Albanese government pressed ahead, arguing that urgent action was needed to protect young people. Their opponents in the Liberal-National coalition, not wanting to appear soft on tech regulation, fell in line. The result? A law that feels more like a political statement than a well-thought-out policy.

There’s no denying the appeal of bold action on Big Tech. Headlines about online predators and harmful content make it easy to rally public support. But there’s a fine line between decisive governance and reactionary policymaking.

Big Questions, Few Answers

The most glaring issue is privacy. Forcing users to hand over ID to access social media opens up a Pandora’s box of security concerns. Centralizing sensitive personal data creates a tempting target for hackers, and Australia’s track record with large-scale data breaches isn’t exactly reassuring.

There’s also the question of what happens when kids inevitably find workarounds. Locking them out of mainstream platforms doesn’t mean they’ll stop using the internet—it just pushes them into less regulated, potentially more harmful digital spaces. Is that really a win for online safety?

A Global Watch Party

Australia’s bold move is already drawing attention from abroad. Governments worldwide are grappling with how to regulate social media, and this legislation could set a precedent. But whether it becomes a model for others or a cautionary tale remains to be seen.

For now, the Albanese government has delivered a strong message: protecting children online is a priority. But the lack of clear answers about enforcement and privacy leaves the impression that this is a solution in search of a strategy.

All on the Platforms

Under the new social media law, the responsibility for enforcement doesn’t rest with the government, but with the very companies it targets. Platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram will be tasked with ensuring no Australian under 16 manages to slip through the digital gates. If they fail?

They’ll face fines of up to A$50 million (about $32.4 million USD). That’s a steep price for failing to solve a problem the government itself hasn’t figured out how to address.

The legislation offers little in the way of specifics, leaving tech giants to essentially guess how they’re supposed to pull off this feat. The law vaguely mentions taking “reasonable steps” to verify age but skips the critical part: defining what “reasonable” means.

The Industry Pushback

Tech companies, predictably, are not thrilled. Meta, in its submission to a Senate inquiry, called the law “rushed” and out of touch with the current limitations of age-verification technology. “The social media ban overlooks the practical reality of age assurance technology,” Meta argued. Translation? The tools to make this work either don’t exist or aren’t reliable enough to enforce at scale.

X didn’t hold back either. The platform warned of potential misuse of the sweeping powers the legislation grants to the minister for communications. X CEO Linda Yaccarino’s team even raised concerns that these powers could be used to curb free speech — another way of saying that regulating who gets to log on could quickly evolve into regulating what they’re allowed to say.

And it’s not just the tech companies pushing back. The Human Rights Law Centre questioned the lawfulness of the bill, highlighting how it opens the door to intrusive data collection while offering no safeguards against abuse.

Promises, Assurances, and Ambiguities

The government insists it won’t force people to hand over passports, licenses, or tap into the contentious new digital ID system to prove their age. But here’s the catch: there’s nothing in the current law explicitly preventing that, either. The government is effectively asking Australians to trust that these measures won’t lead to broader surveillance—even as the legislation creates the infrastructure to make it possible.

This uncertainty was laid bare during the bill’s rushed four-hour review. Liberal National Senator Matt Canavan pressed for clarity, and while the Coalition managed to extract a promise for amendments preventing platforms from demanding IDs outright, it still feels like a band-aid on an otherwise sprawling mess.

A Law in Search of a Strategy

Part of the problem is that the government itself doesn’t seem entirely sure how this law will work. A trial of age-assurance technology is planned for mid-2025—long after the law is expected to take effect. The communications minister, Michelle Rowland, will ultimately decide what enforcement methods apply to which platforms, wielding what critics describe as “expansive” and potentially unchecked authority.

It’s a power dynamic that brings to mind a comment from Rowland’s predecessor, Stephen Conroy, who once bragged about his ability to make telecommunications companies “wear red underpants on [their] head” if he so desired. Tech companies now face the unenviable task of interpreting a vague law while bracing for whatever decisions the minister might make in the future.

The list of platforms affected by the law is another moving target. Government officials have dropped hints in interviews—YouTube, for example, might not make the cut—but these decisions will ultimately be left to the minister. This pick-and-choose approach adds another layer of uncertainty, leaving tech companies and users alike guessing at what’s coming next.

The Bigger Picture

The debate around this legislation is as much about philosophy as it is about enforcement. On one hand, the government is trying to address legitimate concerns about children’s safety online. On the other, it’s doing so in a way that raises serious questions about privacy, free speech, and the limits of state power over the digital realm.

Australia’s experiment could become a model for other countries grappling with the same challenges—or a cautionary tale of what happens when governments legislate without a clear plan. For now, the only certainty is uncertainty. In a year’s time, Australians might find themselves proving their age every time they try to log in—or watching the system collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 36 mins ago

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Agriculture / 1 hour ago

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust: Worshipping Policies While Ignoring Science

Energy / 4 hours ago

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

Digital ID

Thousands protest UK government’s plans to introduce mandatory digital IDs

Published on October 22, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

Protestors rallied in London in opposition to ‘BritCard’, which would require the personal information of all UK workers

Thousands of protestors gathered in London to voice their opposition to the UK government’s plan to introduce mandatory digital IDs.

Last Saturday, the protestors marched through central London carrying signs that read “No to Digital ID,” “If You Accept Digital ID Today, You’ve Accepted Social Credit Tomorrow,” and “Once Scanned, Never Free.”

The protests came in response to Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing the government’s plan to introduce a mandatory digital ID, called “BritCard,” for everyone who wants to work in the UK. The plan has been met with a strong backlash from the public, including protests in other cities, as reported by LifeSiteNews. Almost three million people have signed a petition opposing the government’s plan to make the “BritCard” mandatory for all workers by 2029. According to the petition, “no one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system,” which it describes as a “step towards mass surveillance and digital control.”

Starmer and his government used the problem of illegal immigration, for which they are at least partly responsible, as a pretext to mandate digital ID. However, critics say the real purpose of the scheme is to introduce mass surveillance of British citizens in order to control them.

The globalist NGO of the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the “Tony Blair Institute for Global Change,” is one of the premier proponents of the digital ID scheme.

The protest in London was led by former Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, who was expelled from the Conservative Party in 2023 over his opposition to the COVID shots.

Silkie Carlo, director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, told the Daily Mail that digital ID was “fast becoming a digital permit required to live our everyday lives.”

“Starmer has sold his Orwellian digital ID scheme to the public on the lie that it will only be used to stop illegal working but now the truth, buried in the small print, is becoming clear,” she continued.

“We now know that digital IDs could be the backbone of a surveillance state and used for everything from tax and pensions to banking and education.”

“No one voted for this and millions of people who have signed the petition against it are simply being ignored,” Carlo concluded.

The BritCard would be stored on smartphones and include personal details such as name, date of birth, residency status, nationality, a photograph, and potentially more sensitive personal data. The government is reportedly considering introducing digital IDs for children as young as 13.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said the proposal was a “gimmick that will do nothing to stop the boats,” while the head of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, said he was “firmly opposed” to it.

Farage has vowed to undo any digital ID system rolled out by the Labour government if he becomes UK’s next prime minister.

“It will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalize the rest of us,” Farage said regarding the BritCard. “The state should never have this much power.”

Continue Reading

Digital ID

Toronto airport requests approval of ‘digital IDs’ for domestic airport travel

Published on October 21, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A few months ago, the Canadian government hired outside consultants who will be tasked with looking into whether or not officials should proceed with creating a digital ID system for all citizens and residents.

Pearson International Airport recently asked that Canada’s Secure Air Travel Regulations be amended to allow ‘digital ID to be recognized,’ paving the way for biometrics to be used.

Canadian airport officials asked the federal government to implement a digital ID for domestic travelers as an option in the name of “modernization.”

Currently, domestic travelers are only required to use physical identification for air travel, including a driver’s license, passport, or government-issued ID card.

However, Toronto’s Pearson International Airport recently recommended that Canada’s Secure Air Travel Regulations be amended to allow for “digital ID to be recognized.”

“To modernize and support enhanced passenger experience, we ask that the government endorse system-wide border and screening modernization including immediate regulatory changes,” Pearson representatives told Canada’s House of Commons finance committee in a recent submission.

Airport managers wrote that “Canada should proactively embrace both emerging and proven technologies that have the potential to enhance the passenger experience and improve operational efficiency and promote productivity across the sector.” 

“Key initiatives should include accelerating the adoption of a common digital ID for both domestic and international travel.”

The Canadian Airports Council also told Parliament that a national digital ID program should start with airport travelers, including the introduction of “biometrics.”

The Council asked to “enable digital ID and biometrics in air travel” to allow it to “enable more efficient use of space, reduce pressure on infrastructure and enhance security.”

“At present, Canada is behind our international peers in ensuring travel process security screening, Customs and border procedures and boarding are modern, efficient, simple and biometrically based,” it wrote.

To date, Parliamentary committees have shot down requests for a domestic national identification system.

Some nations, such as the United Kingdom, have recently said they will mandate digital ID using the pretext of illegal immigration as the catalyst.

As reported by LifeSiteNews a few months ago, the Canadian government hired outside consultants who will be tasked with looking into whether or not officials should proceed with creating a digital ID system for all citizens and residents.

Canada’s Privy Council research from 2023 noted that there is strong public resistance to the use of digital IDs to access government services.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has a history of backing central bank digital currencies and supported in 2023 “choking off the money” donated to the Freedom Convoy protests against COVID mandates.

As late as February, the Liberal government under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s immigration ministry, as reported by LifeSiteNews, was secretly asking Canadians via surveys if they would accept a national identification program that would likely end up requiring each citizen to always have a type of “digital” passport on them.

While the Liberal government under Trudeau insisted the program would be optional, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre nonetheless sounded the alarm by promising to introduce a bill that would “expressly prohibit” digital IDs in Canada.

Digital IDs and similar systems have long been pushed by globalist groups like the World Economic Forum, an organization with which Carney has extensive ties, under the guise of ease of access and security.

Critics, however, have warned that the purpose of such a system is actually to centralize control over citizens. This opinion seems to be mirrored by the general public, with a Bank of Canada survey finding that Canadians are very wary of a government-backed digital currency, concluding that a “significant number” of citizens would resist the implementation of such a system.

Continue Reading

Trending

X