The Insiders Report: 13

In this report, The Insiders comment on the increasing trend towards the introduction of government digital IDs, and the roles of government and citizens in society.

Image by Darwin Laganzon from Pixabay

IN OTHER NEWS: The government in the UK has stated that it is determined to introduce a digital ID in that country, within the current parliamentary term. Similar moves are underway in Australia and here in New Zealand, beginning with the “Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill”.

It might be argued that these policies are part of a wider move to erode privacy for the citizen.

What are your views on this and what do these authorities seek to achieve in the long run with their plans?

THE INSIDERS: It is plain to see for anyone who wishes to do so, that the erosion of privacy for the citizenry is at front and centre, it is the outward purpose of the plans to introduce measures such as a generally issued, central government issued identity card.

Now obviously, the proponents of this would seek to sell the convenience and advantages that such a card or ID might bestow, but at no point do they address the erosion of the relationship between state and citizen, that such a document necessarily entails. Because clearly if they did so, it would undermine their case for its adoption, and so they simply ignore it.

And what you have in this situation is a media that is not only compliant but is an active advocate of such measures. Where they should be holding the feet of the powerful, of the authorities to the fire, they are in fact working, if not in collusion, then in support of these types of measures.

The average citizen in a country such as New Zealand or Australia or the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extend but still to a large extent, in the United States, the average citizen is woefully unaware of the nature, or the intended nature, of the relationship between state and citizen, and of the roles and duties of each as foils, as checks and balances, each to the power of the other.

But what seems to have been forgotten is that in the end, it is the role of government to protect the rights and privacy of the citizen and not necessarily the advancement of the powers of the state. It is true that it is a function of the state to help protect the citizen from harm, but it is not solely the responsibility of the state. And much of the real responsibility for this lies with the individual citizen.

Where the line is drawn, so to speak, is subject to change over time, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. But when it is done in the absence of knowledge and understanding of the duties and responsibilities of each party to exercise this role of check and balance, it can be seen in the attitude of younger generations to the issue of privacy. It can be seen in the attitude of those who argue that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from “authority”. When experience and an understanding of history would strongly argue that that is not the case.

It is increasingly seen by both citizenry and representatives of the state, that it is becoming exclusively the role of the state to protect the individual from all harms. And you can see this most clearly in the United Kingdom, where the state seems to take it upon itself to protect certain individuals from having their feelings hurt or being offended. When in reality, this role lies squarely with the individual and is not at all within the purview of the state. But clearly in that country, such a view is not widely held and much of the population supports this unprecedented expansion of the power and role of the state to overtake and undermine the responsibilities of the individual within society.

And within this lies great danger for the society, because it breaks, it upsets the balance between the individual, the citizen, and the state and that role of balancing, of being a check against the power and authority of the other.

It is not in the interest of either individual or society for the power, the rights of individuals to be completely unchecked. There is a responsibility for individuals within a society to conduct themselves responsibly, lest murder and mayhem ensue.

And likewise, there are examples throughout history where the power and authority of an unbridled state, result in the destruction of society and the death and immiseration of millions. But in a society where the state is aware of its duty to protect and uphold the freedom of the individual, and where the individual understands their responsibility to not only hold the state to account on this but to conduct his or her own affairs in a way that supports and protects both the freedom of that individual themselves and that of those around them as well, it is not an entirely self-centred responsibility.

You live in a time where views such as these we have expressed may be considered to be right wing, ultra conservative, any number of isms and jargons, but these principles are in fact those at the heart of liberal society; of any society that seeks to protect and defend the wellbeing of that society and the individuals within it, that compose it.

And a little bit of reading, a little bit of study, can be not only enlightening, but inspiring, to the individual who values and seeks to live within a society that promotes the liberty and wellbeing of that society and all its members.