Oct 4, 2025
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Latvia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Canada
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Canada
seen from South Korea
seen from Canada
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
DONT USING YOUR CARD PAYMENTS NOW. DONT BE AN IDIOT.
propaganda poster for digital id. it's coming sooner than I thought in the UK. i am to become a data point point, analysed, scrutinised, infantilised, then later tossed in the fire-pit to appease Moloch by the high priests of Technocracy.
If only we knew what their plan was #GlobalistAgenda #KlausSchwab #FourthIndustrialRevolution #GreatReset #NWO #Agenda2030 #OneWorldGovernment #DepopulationAgenda #SocialCreditSystem #CarbonTax #ClimateScam #DigitalID (at WEF World Economic Forum Davos) https://www.instagram.com/p/Cnez06nuZjK/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=
If only we knew what their plan was #GlobalistAgenda #KlausSchwab #FourthIndustrialRevolution #GreatReset #NWO #Agenda2030 #OneWorldGovernment #DepopulationAgenda #SocialCreditSystem #CarbonTax #ClimateScam #DigitalID (at WEF World Economic Forum Davos) https://www.instagram.com/p/Cnex4vNuOJD/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=
Andy Burnham was the ID card minister under Blair; now he wants to urgently ban under-16s from accessing online content
From May 2005 to May 2006, Andy Burnham was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office in Tony Blair’s government.
At that time, he pushed for digital IDs to be imposed on the population. On the campaign trail, he said that it was not the right time for Starmer to introduce digital IDs. Now, he’s saying that methods to ban under-16s need to be “urgently” put in place.
Any method used to ban under-16s from online content is the first step in imposing digital IDs.
In May, before the by-election in Makerfield, The Register reported:
The Greater Manchester mayor told a session at the UK's Labour party conference in Manchester last autumn that he opposed digital ID given the problems the previous Labour government he had served in had experienced with ID cards.
“I think there’s a risk of an opportunity cost situation here, where something can consume a huge amount of time and actually doesn’t come through,” he said. “And that will be the lesson about 2005 to 2010 Parliament; it consumed a lot of air time and it didn’t actually materialise.”
ID cards did actually materialise – with 13,200 produced before the scheme was scrapped. In fact, the Home Office used Manchester as a testing ground for the scheme. Burnham helped to sell it when he was a Home Office minister in 2005-6, telling the BBC that compulsory national ID cards would be “a major breakthrough” in tackling identity fraud.
… former MP Josh Simons stood down to provide Burnham with the chance of returning to Parliament and then challenging Starmer as Labour leader and UK prime minister.
Until February, Simons was the minister responsible for Starmer’s digital ID plans. He resigned after his decision to commission a probe into journalists who had written critical articles about the think tank he ran, Labour Together.
Digital ID is also opposed by other parties, including Reform, so dropping it would remove a point of difference and could tempt some voters back to Labour. On the other hand many Labour MPs like the policy.
Burnham backlash: UK Digital ID plans in peril if Manchester mayor succeeds Starmer, The Register, 22 May 2026
The title of the Register’s article indicates that Burnham will not introduce digital IDs. The Telegraph’s article titled ‘Burnham rejects digital ID cards in latest split with Starmer’ gives the same impression. However, the articles’ titles are misleading. As The Telegraph wrote, “the Mayor of Greater Manchester said he did not think it was the right time for the Prime Minister to introduce the digital IDs.” This is not a rejection of digital IDs.
Read: Burnham: Digital ID would be ‘waste of time’, The Telegraph, 29 September 2025
Regardless of what Burnham did or didn’t say, or what impression he gave, we must recall that Burnham said this at a Labour Party conference during a time when rumours were swirling that he had his eye on becoming the Labour Party leader, and so the next Prime Minister, and was using the conference to secretly build support for his plan from attendees:
The figure of Andy Burnham is looming large over Liverpool as Labour MPs prepare to gather in Merseyside this weekend for their annual party conference.
“Rather than dismiss speculation that he wants to replace Keir Starmer, the Mayor of Greater Manchester's pre-conference interventions have fuelled claims that he wants to swap the northwest of England for Westminster.
Speaking on the Political Currency podcast this week, former Labour Cabinet minister Ed Balls said Burnham "is going out to build up and provoke massive speculation."
Andy Burnham Casts A Shadow Over Labour Party Conference, Politics Home, 26 September 2025
It’s commonplace for politicians to lie to the public. Burnham is one of those politicians who will say anything to gain support and votes, while acting out the opposite. What Burnham says on the campaign trail to win votes and what Burnham does when he’s in office are two different things.
And then there’s the doublespeak and/or Globalese that propagandists employ.
Andy Burnham has committed to enforcing a strict social media ban for users under the age of 16, under the guise of “online safety.” And he wants “urgency” in its delivery. “He knows this ban is a critical first step to keeping kids safe online,” a spokeswoman for Burnham told The Mirror.
Banning under-16s is not, nor has it ever been, about online safety or “keeping kids safe online.” Whatever method any government uses to ban or restrict under-16’s access to any online content is a critical first step toward a digital ID for everyone. In short, what is commonly referred to as age verification is Globalese for digital ID.
Related: New Zealand: Any method to ban under-16s from social media will drift into digital IDs for everyone
Big Brother Watch currently has an email campaign to stop the Labour Party’s plans to introduce digital IDs. In the video below, they explain why we should email Burnham and tell him why we do not want a society controlled by digital IDs.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dkASTgPJqEs Big Brother Watch: Tell Andy Burnham NO to digital ID for social media, 9 July 2026
New Zealand: Any method to ban under-16s from social media will drift into digital IDs for everyone
Initially, as part of the proposed social media ban on under-16s, the New Zealand government considered a restriction or outright ban on using VPNs.
The Government has since backed down on VPNs but the central issue remains: any ban strong enough to stop determined teenagers will almost certainly require intrusive checks on adults.
Using age verification, for example, to limit under-16s access to online content will always drift into digital IDs for everyone and state control over the internet.
Parents Do Not Need Big Brother To Block Social Media
By Centrist, 8 July 2026
A Child Safety Policy Becomes Something Bigger
The proposed under-16 social media ban is being sold as child protection. That is the attractive part of the policy. Most parents know smartphones and social media can be harmful, addictive and corrosive for young people. But the political danger is that a policy aimed at children may become a system of online control for everyone.
The Post initially reported that the government was considering a VPN ban or restrictions as part of the policy work. National’s Education Minister Erica Stanford has since said she is not pursuing VPN restrictions, after ACT made clear it would block any such move.
VPN stands for Virtual Private Network. It encrypts a user’s internet connection and can make their device appear to be accessing the internet from another location.
ACT leader David Seymour took to X to say that “the government” is not pursuing such a thing. He said National MPs had been keen on a VPN ban at select committee, while Stanford has been developing proposals to ban under-16s from social media.
But the question remains how the government plans to enforce an under-16 social media ban without pushing adults toward online age checks, identity verification or other forms of digital access control.
While the government may not have adopted a VPN ban, the episode shows how quickly a child-safety policy can raise wider questions about privacy, enforcement and state control of the internet.
The Prime Minister previously announced that social media restrictions for under-16s would become part of the government’s work programme, with Stanford assigned to lead the work and bring options to Cabinet.
Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee has also recommended age restrictions for social media platforms and further work on restricting social media access for under-16s.
Seymour Is Right About The Privacy Risk
Seymour’s broader warning is that any ban strong enough to stop determined teenagers will almost certainly require intrusive checks on adults.
If a social media company must prove a user is over 16, then every user may eventually have to prove their age. That is where a child-safety policy begins to drift toward digital ID.
According to Seymour, “there’s no point calling out China’s missiles if we’re going to copy their policies anyway.”
InternetNZ has also warned against VPN regulation, saying, “We do not support VPN regulation and share many of the concerns raised by the ACT and Green Parties in their alternative reports.”
InternetNZ argues that people use VPNs for valid reasons, including security and protection from surveillance. It has described VPN technology as standard practice for good cybersecurity, used by businesses, government and others.
That is why VPN restrictions are such a red flag. They are privacy and security tools used by workers, businesses, journalists and ordinary citizens who do not want every online action exposed to platforms, advertisers, or network providers.
Big Tech Already Gives Parents Tools
The deeper problem with Stanford’s approach is that it treats family discipline as a problem for the state to solve, even though most parents already have the power to restrict social media use at the device level.
Apple’s Screen Time allows parents to set age-related restrictions for content, purchases, downloads, privacy settings, inappropriate web content and app access. Parents can also prevent children from installing or deleting apps or making App Store purchases.
Google’s Family Link lets parents block apps, set individual app time limits, require approval for new apps, block inappropriate sites and manage settings across Chrome, Google Play, YouTube and Search.
Samsung directs Galaxy users to parental controls and Google Family Link, which include the ability to block apps, lock devices, restrict content and set screen-time limits.
TikTok also has Family Pairing, allowing caregivers to manage screen time, safety settings and content controls for teenage accounts.
These tools are not perfect. But neither is legislation.
That does not make parenting easy. In today’s smartphone culture, turning off access can be a hard fight inside the home. But a hard parenting decision is not automatically a job for Big Brother.
A motivated teenager may try to evade household rules. That does not prove the answer is a national identity checkpoint for the internet.
This Is Really About Digital ID
Perhaps the better approach is to make parental controls easier to use. Require device makers and platforms to make them visible at setup. Educate parents. Improve default settings for young users.
New Zealand already has a Digital Identity Services Trust Framework, which is the legal framework for accredited digital identity services. The Govt.nz app also now includes a digital wallet intended to hold credentials such as licences, IDs and qualifications as they become available.
Centrist has previously reported that digital driver licences became a government priority despite little evidence of public demand, and that a licence on a phone is only one part of a wider credential system linked to the app, NZ Verify and digital proof of age.
The government says these systems are about convenience and trust. The risk is function creep. A digital wallet that begins as a voluntary way to access services can become much less voluntary if private platforms are pressured to verify age at scale.
The burden should be on Stanford to explain why existing parental controls are not enough before the country is pushed toward broader online verification.
About the Author
Centrist is a free online news platform for New Zealand-relevant content. The platform provides links and summarises its top picks from a growing list of independent, alternative, and corporate media. You can sign up to receive their free newsletter HERE.