Rowan Dean warns digital identity and state-controlled currency could merge into a system of full government control over citizens’ lives.
Australia’s debate over digital identification has entered a sharp and dangerous phase. Broadcaster Rowan Dean called the government’s digital ID proposal “the end of democracy,” warning it would lock citizens into a system of total surveillance. He described it as a step toward a Chinese-style social credit regime, where every financial and personal action could be monitored and restricted. According to Dean, digital ID combined with digital currency would give authorities control over where people travel, what they eat, how they spend, and even what jobs they can hold.
Dean said those who believe such powers will never be abused have already forgotten the COVID years, when QR codes and vaccine mandates were used to track movement and enforce compliance. His message was simple: governments that once confined people to their homes in the name of safety can easily use similar systems for control under any future pretext.
He dismissed the official justifications that digital ID is about security, efficiency, or youth protection online. Instead, he argued it is a cornerstone of the United Nations’ wider plan for global surveillance and data consolidation. Once linked with financial systems and travel records, it would be irreversible. People would no longer own their identity; the state would.
Critics of the plan question why a government that struggles to manage basic infrastructure and border control should be trusted with citizens’ digital lives. Many see it as an attempt to normalize mass monitoring while deflecting attention from deeper political and social failures. The frustration runs deeper than privacy concerns. It is about the principle of consent, whether free citizens must justify their privacy to the state, or whether the state must justify its intrusion into private life.
As Paul Chadwick, Victoria’s former privacy commissioner, once said, “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear,” directed at the public, should be turned back toward government as, “No legitimate reason to know, no legitimate reason to ask.” That remains the test. A government that cannot meet it has no moral claim to the trust of those it governs.
Authored By: Global GeoPolitics
If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. Alternatively you can support by way of a cup of coffee:
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Leave a comment