Censorship Industrial Complex
Total Surveillance, Censorship, And Behavior Control Are Real Goals Of Digital ID Advocates
Why the whole world should be alarmed by what Bill Gates, Oracle’s Larry Ellison, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer are pushing
Everybody needs a digital ID, say heads of state and high-tech leaders. They give many reasons: it will stop illegal migration; it will increase efficiency; it will protect privacy; and it will prevent online fraud and data ransoming.
But we don’t need digital IDs for any of those things. The US just stopped illegal migration without digital IDs. Our online activities are more efficient than ever and it’s hard to see how they could get more efficient without sacrificing privacy and safety.
And centralizing data through digital IDs, which could link social media, vaccine, and banking information, in ways that allow government control, would undermine cybersecurity because having separate log-ins for our financial, health, shopping, banking, credit card, and other data makes sure that if one is hacked they aren’t all hacked.
“All your information in one place is a hacker’s dream,” said an Oxford University IT expert. “We already have countless ways we can provide our identity – passports, driving licences, and so on.”
Many Americans likely think that digital IDs are only something people in Britain have to worry about. Prime Minister Keir Starmer last week declared that every working person there must have digital ID, or “BritCard”. The U.S. should never allow such a thing. A digital ID that linked our social media, vaccine records, and bank accounts could allow governments to censor and control the population, violating our free speech and privacy rights.
Those Americans should think again. We are rapidly moving to the exact same digital ID surveillance and control system as the British. Real IDs contain embedded microchips that bring us one step closer to digital IDs. State governors are pushing it. Gavin Newsom last year allowed drivers licenses onto Apple and Google wallets. This “mobile drivers license,” or mDL, is a digital ID, and one more link in the chain.
And it is Americans, including Bill Gates and the controlling owner of Oracle, Larry Ellison, who are financing the digital ID push. “ The NHS [National Health Service] in the UK has an incredible amount of population data, but it’s fragmented,” he told Blair in February of this year. “It’s not easily accessible by these AI models. We have to take all of this data we have in our country and move it into a single, if you will, unified data platform… The secret is to get all of that data in one place.”
In September, Ellison made clear that he viewed the power of data centralization in behavior change. “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly watching and recording everything that’s going on.”
Ellison’s Oracle is an AI database cloud computing company and he is its best salesman. Ellison, the second richest man in the world, and owner of CBS and CNN, has “donated or pledged at least £257m to the Tony Blair Institute,” reported the New Statesman last week. “Ellison donations have helped it grow to more than 900 staff, working in at least 45 countries.”
 |
The nightmare scenario for mass, constant spying on citizens is not theoretical. China in 2019 created a social credit system with rewards that include better employment, school admissions, and shorter wait times in hospitals, and punishments including denial of access to public services and social events, denial of train and air tickets, and public shaming.
One study found that at least one-third of total “offenses” were not actually against the law and thus expanded “local government authority into moral and social domains beyond the law,” found researchers.
UK’s Big Brother Watched recently warned that a digital ID system, even if initially limited, could be a gateway to more invasive government surveillance and intrusion.
“Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly watching” — Larry Ellison
Why would any liberal and democratic Western government like Britain want such a thing?
Money is no doubt a big part of it. Oracle and other high tech companies stand to make trillions taking bits of our money here and there for every transaction. Governments like Keir Starmer’s also seem eager to give them billions in contracts to monitor and analyze the population.
We found no evidence Starmer would personally benefit financially from digital IDs, however, and as a political leader, he must consider whether his actions are popular, and digital IDs are not. A YouGov poll released yesterday found UK opinion toward digital IDs was 42 percent in favor and 45 percent against. And given the negative reaction to them online, popular opposition will likely rise.
Tony Blair Institute’s (TBI) polling may have misled Starmer. TBI’s first question primed people to think about how inconvenienced they’ve felt without a digital ID, a blatantly manipulative form of polling.
 |
No honest pollster seeking to give a client a realistic understanding of how the public thought about digital IDs would have started with that question, because they know the importance of framing.
The second question was equally biased. “Some are suggesting the government should introduce a new app, allowing instant access to a range of public services.” The framing suggests awareness on the part of the pollster that the public had a negative view of “digital ID,” hence the use of the “app” euphemism.
The third question was “Do you think there is digital technology that could help tackle these issues… Processing asylum seekers and managing the UK’s borders.”
One reason to think Starmer relied on the TBI’s biased polling is that Starmer pitched the digital ID as necessary to stop mass migration. “I know working people are worried about the level of illegal migration into this country,” said Starmer. “Digital ID… will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.”
The notion is absurd. Nations have maintained borders for hundreds of years without the need for digital IDs.
Given how badly the Starmer government’s digital ID roll out appears to have backfired, why did Starmer and Blair push it?
 |
One possibility is that they really believe in the mission of improving people’s lives. That is already how they justify it. Said Starmer, “it will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly – rather than hunting around for an old utility bill.”
But it is hard to believe Starmer and Blair really viewed the difficulty of finding where you left your utility bill as a high-priority social problem.
It appears more likely that they are hiding their reasons and that the real motivation is the same as the Chinese government: to control the population.
Gates last year released a Netflix documentary calling for sweeping AI-powered censorship of people he disagrees with on vaccines and other issues.
The Starmer government’s digital IDs should be a wake-up call to all of us. For years, various people have been raising concerns about digital IDs but free speech and privacy advocates have clearly not done enough to stop them. That needs to change.
The good news is that the backlash to the digital IDs appears strong and growing. And anyone can see that, when they spoke, Blair was taking instructions from Ellison. “You can pipe this data from these three thousand separate data sources into a single unified database,” said Ellison, “and that’s what we need to do.”
The episode should wake us up to the continuing threat of total surveillance and censorship. Powerful high-tech elites see dollar signs in controlling our data — and our behavior.
As such, this episode has motivated my colleagues and me to do more on this issue, including making grants to people doing investigative reporting, research, documentary filmmaking, policy development and policy advocacy on digital IDs. Please email [email protected] to get involved, and consider making a tax-deductible donation.
And if you’re not already a subscriber, please subscribe now to support our award-winning investigative journalism, which is essential to revealing the truth about censorship and digital IDs…
Become a paying subscriber of Public to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Quebec City faces lawsuit after cancelling Christian event over “controversial” artist
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers have filed a claim in Quebec Superior Court against Quebec City (City) on behalf of Burn 24/7 Canada Worship Ministries, a Christian organization whose worship event was abruptly cancelled by the City this past summer.
The claim seeks reimbursement of rent, punitive damages, and judicial declarations that the City violated Burn 24/7 Canada’s fundamental freedoms protected under both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Based in British Columbia, Burn 24/7 Canada is a non-profit Christian ministry that organizes musical worship and prayer events across the country. Its July 2025 Canadian tour featured American singer-songwriter Sean Feucht, known for his contemporary Christian music. Mr. Feucht had been portrayed negatively in some Canadian media outlets for his opposition to abortion, his support for traditional marriage, and his public support of U.S. President Donald Trump.
On July 4, 2025, Burn 24/7 Canada signed a lease with the City to hold a worship and prayer event at ExpoCité. The organization paid the full rental fee of $2,609.93 on July 14. However, without notice, the City cancelled the lease on July 23—just one day before the scheduled event—claiming the presence of a “controversial” artist had not been disclosed. Officials stated publicly that ExpoCité had terminated the contract after determining an “artist who generates significant controversy has consequences for ExpoCité’s reputation.”
The City cited sections of the lease related to “illegal solicitation” and “use of premises,” arguing these clauses gave it authority to terminate the agreement. Lawyers representing Burn 24/7 argue this claim is absurd, made in bad faith, and reflective of clear discrimination on the basis of religion and political opinion.
Constitutional lawyer Olivier Séguin said, “In this era of cancel culture, it’s easy to see why some private citizens might yield to public pressure. But when government officials do the same, it crosses a line. The City’s conduct is inexcusable and must be punished.”
The lawsuit comes amid a wave of cancellations that swept across Canada in July 2025, after Parks Canada and several municipalities—including Halifax, Charlottetown, and Moncton—revoked permissions for Mr. Feucht’s scheduled events, citing “security” concerns following threats of protest.
In this brief video, constitutional lawyer Mr. Séguin summarizes the details of this matter.
Presented as a defense of democracy, the plan reads more like the architecture of a managed reality.
|
European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.
Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.
At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”
The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.
One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.
The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”
Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”
In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.
The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.
Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”
The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organizations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”
In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.
Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.
The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”
Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.
The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the
Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.
Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.
Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”
While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.
Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.
Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.
The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”
This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.
A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.
Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.
Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”
This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.
Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”
While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.
Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.
Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.
For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.
Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”
|
|
|
|
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
Chinese-Owned Trailer Park Beside U.S. Stealth Bomber Base Linked to Alleged Vancouver Repression Case
US Nuclear Bomber Fleet Shares Fence With Trailer Park Linked To Chinese Intel-Tied Fraudster
CBSA Bust Uncovers Mexican Cartel Network in Montreal High-Rise, Moving Hundreds Across Canada-U.S. Border
Laura Ingraham Presses Trump On Allowing Flood Of Chinese Students Into US
-
Carbon Tax1 day agoCarney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘Holy Sh*t!’: Podcaster Aghast As Charlie Kirk’s Security Leader Reads Texts He Allegedly Sent University Police
-
Alberta1 day agoAlbertans choose new licence plate design with the “Strong and Free” motto
-
Agriculture2 days agoFederal cabinet calls for Canadian bank used primarily by white farmers to be more diverse
-
Business2 days agoThe UN Pushing Carbon Taxes, Punishing Prosperity, And Promoting Poverty
-
Alberta1 day agoEdmonton and Red Deer to Host 2027 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship
-
Great Reset2 days agoCanadian government forcing doctors to promote euthanasia to patients: report
-
Health1 day agoNEW STUDY: Infant Vaccine “Intensity” Strongly Predicts Autism Rates Worldwide