Europe goes full Digital (ID)

A little less than a month ago - on July the 3rd, 2023, to be specific - the European Union released this document'; ‘Digital Identity Standards’.

Bet you didn’t see that one coming. No really - I didn’t, in part because no-one in the media told me about it… though, in fairness, it’s rare that I pay them attention these days anyway.

-

I have covered Digital ID in the past. In this article, I outlined how Clare Sullivan is very central to this, and how she, from the early days of the UK National ID Card scheme in 2006, penned a book in 2011 on the topic, before working with the World Bank.

I also outlined how Digital ID fits in with the SDGs (16.9), and how the EU vaccination certificate in fact is Digital ID. If you haven’t yet read this, I would recommend you do - especially considering the WHO only a few months back adopted this for global use (also covered in article).

I further outlined how she meshes in with the terrifying Georgetown Whitepaper on surveillance, a grid, which was originally supposed to be used for a different purpose. But good fortune saw it ready for deployment at the exact time we needed it. Lucky us!

In short, she works on the very same team as the man who architected the AvesTerra server backend for global surveillance, JC Smart.

The document linked above - on Digital Identity Standards - in some ways is refreshing. Because in my travels of tons of documents, generally written in coded legalese, and specifically aiming to hide the meat of issues in the least visible space, this document is pretty honest already from the get-go.

It’s about Digital ID. The document is brand new, and even the authors are listed.

The document is furthermore a draft, yet, it includes some exciting new levers of power, which I’m sure won’t see your business bank account pulled should you not comply with the Social License to Operate, given that ESG in short is a social credit system for business.

Or, of course, if you’re an individual, you might see you bank account closed due to running afoul some opaque ESG requirement which neither you nor any accountable politician has any control over whatsoever. No, better to farm out these proposals to those who have your interests truly at heart - the NGOs and large enterprise.

Anyway, on with it. Here are the recommendations -

‘EU policymakers should provide a clear legal definition of the term Digital Identity’ - does that tell you they’re considering whether it should be rolled out in the first place, or if it’s a done deal? Obviously the latter. It’s not a question of if these should even exist, it’s about wording the correct framework.

‘eIDAS regulation may be the right vehicle through which to define it‘ - ie, they already have defined standards which are very, very close.

‘EU Digital Identity Wallet, EU policymakers should make use of the new Digital Markets Act‘ - the next level of regulatory infrastructure - the Digital Markets Act - is already in place, just waiting for the Digital ID to slot into place.

‘The European standardisation organisations should also make use of the work on the toolbox process that was used to produce the European Digital Identity Architecture and Reference Framework Outline‘ - oh wait, so it’s practically there already?

Let’s have a quick look. Here’s the page.

‘On 3 June 2021, the Commission adopted a Recommendation‘ - meaning that this was being carried out whilst scaring you about an alleged pandemic.

‘summary description of the eIDAS expert group’s understanding of the EUDI Wallet concept including’ - these, in order words, are what will be implemented. Make no mistake. And ‘roles of the actors of the ecosystem‘… sorry, that somewhat sounds like the sort of thing a democracy would have a vote on. Sorry, no can do. And ‘potential building blocks‘ means what they’ll likely drive through the loophole they’ll insert within 30 seconds of being deployes. It’s overt circumvention of democracy, that’s what this is.

Now, I would like to see what the ‘outline’ entails, but I don’t live in the EU. Consequently, I connected via VPN, selected Netherlands, and et voila… er…

SORRY, PROLE. NOT FOR YOU. IT’S TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY.

Regardless, the document at the bottom of the article can be accessed, and here it is. February 22, 2022.

And oh boy, does it start impressively.

‘Confidence in electronic identification… establishing the identity of a person’ - Do I even need to go on?

And the regulation was enabled on… July the 23rd, 2014.

Just think about that for a second. While Digital ID was still being conspired on behind the scenes at the Centre of Global Development and the World Bank, the European Union rolled out legislation in this regard before the influential 2015 World Bank report! If you’re unaware of that report, then the ‘Clare Sullivan’ article linked above should clue you in.

Back to the prior document, next we have the ‘Objectives’ bit, and wow, do they have objectives. Some of which may even involve said Digital ID!

Setting aside that it aims to store… well, literally everything about you, let’s focus on one particular topic. Health. The EU Digital COVID certificate. Legislation can be found here. June 14, 2021.

Yup, it’s the legislation regarding the Covid-19 vaccination certificate… per Alan Gelb’s proposal in February, 2021.

‘Authentic certificates making up the EU Digital COVID Certificate should be individually identifiable by means of a unique certificate identifier‘.

That is digital ID. Period.

And to really hammer this home, all certificates - vaccination, recovery, and test - will all contain this unique certificate identifier.

And don’t be otherwise fooled by promises of not linking this ‘UCI’ to personal data. It’s explicitly personal, it’s proof of your… well, compliance. Being unvaccinated, when my family and I crossed borders, they made damn certain our names and other detail matched. In fact, in order to even cross via the EuroTunnel, we had to input all levels of detail, from passports, to travel documents, and finally the test certificates. You really think all this data wasn’t centralised, at a time, where they specifically centralise databases all over the globe? Get real.

Here’s an example - there are many, many others, but this is outside the scope here - at this very moment, the CDC is spending $1.45m merging databases in Albania, under the explicit name of ‘One Health Surveillance Approach’.

Seriously.

And this, genuinely, was just one of many, many, many I found, all under the guise of One Health - which is surveillance (and vaccines).

This article seriously needs an update, but I’m still working on it. Regardless - we are definitely not in Kansas anymore.

Besides, mission creep has been the name of the game during the scamdemic - full stop. ‘Two weeks to slow the spread’ turned into a requirement for ‘UCIs’. Vaccines for those at risk only turned into jabbing 5 year olds. AS IF this wouldn’t have eventually shifted forward, even if not explicitly stated in this document.

In fact, there was a story in late 2021 hinting at exactly this. Thierry Breton - naturally - taking the limelight.

It is light on detail, but given that the EU-wide ‘passport’ was fully rolled out at this stage, it appears somewhat obvious that the ‘update’ would essentially mean include more information.

And just to show exactly who Breton is, here’s another headline he caused by the end of 2021, but this will be the last one, because this thread is not about him.

That’s right, when that authoritarian prick doesn’t soapbox about ‘protecting our democracy’ in the vein of ‘censoring misinformation’, he attempts to introduce authoritarian legislation ramming through supply chain control while you enjoy Christmas. But don’t worry. It will only be used ‘during an emergency’.

… or a fake one...

Right, back to the document’s ‘Functional Requirements’.

… but don’t worry. The Unique Certificate Identifier definitely would be trustworthy.

A quick step back in time before moving on. Specifically to June 3, 2021. Here’s a Digital Identity statement in form of a press release by the European Union.

But, look, it’s not mandatory - it simply states that it’s ‘available to anyone who wants to use it’. Ie, anyone wanting to cross a border, use health services, go to the theatre, …

For the record, the ‘European Digital Identity Architecture and Reference Framework‘ document is 27 pages in full. I have really only just skimmed it here. And while it does state that the recommendations are voluntary, the page from which it was linked confirmed a somewhat more nuanced approach.

The outline is non-mandatory, but the final Framework Regulation is not.

And with this said, let’s move on to a more contemporary setting.

-

Because while the above was only just released, in the United States, we see similar legislation going through the chambers. ‘S.884 - Improving Digital Identity Act of 2023‘

You didn’t think this wouldn’t affect you, now did you, Americans?

Also, with that certified crook in the White House allowing his similarly crooked son snorting coke with absolute impunity, you didn’t actually think the law still applies unilaterally anyway, now do you? The two track (in)justicy system will also go digital, I fear.

But, in general, it’s global. It is absolutely global. Here’s from July 6, 2023, and the Netherlands.

Australia do even better here. Because while no documents can yet be found, the site itself is already up, with a placeholder message relating to the documents themselves.

In fact, I can find many similar documents, an early one of which is here - it’s from May 2019, and Malaysia.

-

The bottom line here is that all of this is centralised. All of it. But by whom?

Well, that’s for the next article. I’ll drop some reading material here, just in case you feel bored. Totally has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No, really - this is totally, completely, absolutely unrelated. It has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

You can find both presentations over here, on the World Bank’s website.

But don’t go all conspiratorial now.

-

Make no mistake, this is global.
This will be rolled out, wherever you live.
There will be no public consultation on it whatsoever.
It will not be readily announced on the news.
The initiative could likely see its name change prior to announcement.
The concept will be sold on the back of trumped-up irrelevancies.
They will lie about its history, and claim that it already exists in some form.
It will coincide with some other major event taking place.
… and if there isn’t one on that day, hey, aliens always capture the headlines, no?

But even in the unlikely event that you’re told, they will almost certainly downplay it, claim any concern is conspiracy theory, and put experts on TV who will ridicule the whole thing - and never mind that the conspiracy theorists were right about… well, practically everything during Covid-19.