Post by NFA on Mar 27, 2024 17:37:26 GMT 8
Digital ID laws
One Nation March 27, 2024
The Australian government’s recently passed comprehensive Digital ID system is a disgusting and shocking development in Labor’s outrageous push to control every aspect of our lives. They rushed the bill through parliament without any debate. Which is nothing short of scary and outrageous.
The proposed Digital ID Bill 2023, as introduced by the Albanese Government, represents a shift in how Australians' identities are managed and accessed, bundling personal details such as driver's licenses, Medicare cards, passport details, and Centrelink information into a single digital identity. While Labor’s extremist totalitarian views of the world would tout the ease and efficiency this system promises, the reality is 100% far more intrusive and controlling than most Australians are comfortable with.
One Nation March 27, 2024
The Australian government’s recently passed comprehensive Digital ID system is a disgusting and shocking development in Labor’s outrageous push to control every aspect of our lives. They rushed the bill through parliament without any debate. Which is nothing short of scary and outrageous.
The proposed Digital ID Bill 2023, as introduced by the Albanese Government, represents a shift in how Australians' identities are managed and accessed, bundling personal details such as driver's licenses, Medicare cards, passport details, and Centrelink information into a single digital identity. While Labor’s extremist totalitarian views of the world would tout the ease and efficiency this system promises, the reality is 100% far more intrusive and controlling than most Australians are comfortable with.
The Labor Government's approach to this legislation has been rushed and lacking in transparency, allowing only a brief one-month period for public submissions. This expedited process culminated in a Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry, which unsurprisingly endorsed the bill despite significant public outcry and numerous submissions highlighting the potential for misuse and overreach. The Act’s provision for a government agency to mandate the digital ID for certain services under the vague condition of being "appropriate to do so" leaves much to be desired in terms of checks and balances.
A Digital ID law was originally the idea of the Liberals. Ultimately, the Liberals are no better than Labor when it comes to controlling people's lives. We can't trust the Liberals to repeal this law if they win power.
Senators Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, have rightly pointed out the lack of limitations on the agency's powers, raising alarms about the potential for a social credit system-like scenario. The risks associated with centralising and digitising personal information are manifold, including heightened vulnerabilities to cyber-attacks, privacy breaches, and unauthorised surveillance. These concerns are not merely theoretical; instances of government overreach and misuse of personal information are well-documented globally, underscoring the potential dangers of such a system.
Organisations like the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Digital Rights Watch, and Family Voice Australia have voiced strong opposition to the bill, citing inadequate protections for sensitive data, the risk of "function creep," and the potential for the system to become mandatory in practice, even if it is nominally voluntary. These fears are compounded by the enthusiasm of entities like the National Australia Bank for a digital identity ecosystem, which could extend corporate access to personal information far beyond what is currently permitted.
Even the Law Council of Australia and the Greens have raised concerns about the bill's implications for privacy, human rights, and the potential for exclusion of individuals lacking digital literacy. The digital ID system, as currently proposed, seems poised to exacerbate existing societal divides, rather than bridging them.
Ultimately the Greens sided with the Liberals and Labor to pass the legislation.
The trajectory towards a digital ID system in Australia should be a wake-up call for all who value privacy, liberty, and democratic oversight. The experiences of individuals in Canada and Western Australia serve as stark reminders of how quickly and easily personal information can be weaponised against citizens. The notion that financial institutions, already exposed for their (lack of) handling of personal data, could gain even greater access to our private lives is chilling.
In reflecting on the Australia Card proposal of the 1980s, Justice Michael Kirby's warning resonates now more than ever: the establishment of an ID card system bears the risk of incremental overreach, transforming a tool meant for efficiency into a mechanism for surveillance and control. The Digital ID Bill 2023, with its vague assurances and broad potentials for abuse, stands as a threat to the fundamental values of privacy and autonomy. It is incumbent upon all Australians who cherish these principles to oppose this bill, advocating instead for a society that prioritizes individual rights and freedoms over the convenience of a digital identity.
Senators Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, have rightly pointed out the lack of limitations on the agency's powers, raising alarms about the potential for a social credit system-like scenario. The risks associated with centralising and digitising personal information are manifold, including heightened vulnerabilities to cyber-attacks, privacy breaches, and unauthorised surveillance. These concerns are not merely theoretical; instances of government overreach and misuse of personal information are well-documented globally, underscoring the potential dangers of such a system.
Organisations like the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Digital Rights Watch, and Family Voice Australia have voiced strong opposition to the bill, citing inadequate protections for sensitive data, the risk of "function creep," and the potential for the system to become mandatory in practice, even if it is nominally voluntary. These fears are compounded by the enthusiasm of entities like the National Australia Bank for a digital identity ecosystem, which could extend corporate access to personal information far beyond what is currently permitted.
Even the Law Council of Australia and the Greens have raised concerns about the bill's implications for privacy, human rights, and the potential for exclusion of individuals lacking digital literacy. The digital ID system, as currently proposed, seems poised to exacerbate existing societal divides, rather than bridging them.
Ultimately the Greens sided with the Liberals and Labor to pass the legislation.
The trajectory towards a digital ID system in Australia should be a wake-up call for all who value privacy, liberty, and democratic oversight. The experiences of individuals in Canada and Western Australia serve as stark reminders of how quickly and easily personal information can be weaponised against citizens. The notion that financial institutions, already exposed for their (lack of) handling of personal data, could gain even greater access to our private lives is chilling.
In reflecting on the Australia Card proposal of the 1980s, Justice Michael Kirby's warning resonates now more than ever: the establishment of an ID card system bears the risk of incremental overreach, transforming a tool meant for efficiency into a mechanism for surveillance and control. The Digital ID Bill 2023, with its vague assurances and broad potentials for abuse, stands as a threat to the fundamental values of privacy and autonomy. It is incumbent upon all Australians who cherish these principles to oppose this bill, advocating instead for a society that prioritizes individual rights and freedoms over the convenience of a digital identity.
