Justifying Control with the “Public Safety” Propaganda
Digital ID is not just a technological upgrade. Combined with AI, Big Tech’s influence, and politicians normalizing war and surveillance, it is the framework of a new order—one that threatens to rewrite the social contract itself. Under international law, our rights are not negotiable. Yet unless we defend them now, they will be quietly downgraded from rights into mere permissions, conditional and revocable.
The New Face of Control
Politicians in the UK, Europe, and the US are promoting digital ID systems—a single identity that governs banking, healthcare, travel, and even access to social media. At first glance, it is sold as convenience. Look closer: it is about control.
To consolidate power at home, governments are cultivating a permanent state of emergency—false flags, wars abroad, sanctions, regime changes. Citizens are told these measures are necessary for “public safety.” In truth, this is a drift toward a culture of war and surveillance where democratic debate shrinks and dissent is increasingly policed.
Privacy laws exist—GDPR in Europe, the UK Data Protection Act, and constitutional protections in the US and Canada. But the sheer scale of data integration, the velocity of AI adoption, and the merging of surveillance with governance are pushing these safeguards to their breaking point.
This is not only about technology. It is about the system of power that the technology reinforces. Gaza shows us the blueprint: identity + data + tech + state power.
From Battlefield to Everyday Life
When Israeli militaries deploy AI for targeting, when tech firms enable intelligence analysis and predictive policing, the tools of war bleed seamlessly into civilian governance. What is justified as “security” during war is normalized in peacetime as surveillance of citizens, control of movement, and punishment of dissent.
Consider this:
- Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are not passive service providers. Through projects like Nimbus, they have built the cloud and AI capacity for Israel’s military—technologies now used in Gaza to generate kill lists, track families, and carry out strikes with deadly efficiency.
- Palantir, backed by Wall Street giants like Vanguard and BlackRock, provides automated predictive systems—technology that UN experts warn may already have been used to assemble kill lists. Its CEO, Alexander Karp, a fervent Zionist, insists that safety is achieved not through cooperation but through the exercise of overwhelming power.
- Oracle’s Larry Ellison openly promotes AI as a tool for constant surveillance. At the same time, he is a staunch supporter of Israel and is set to take a lead role in reshaping TikTok in the United States. Alongside his son’s takeover of US news outlets, including CBS News, CNN, Warner Bros., and Paramount, his media ambitions suggest the consolidation of narrative control to match the technological one.
Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has warned: technology companies such as Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and IBM are central to Israel’s surveillance state and its destruction of Gaza. Systems like Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy? process vast data sets to generate automated “kill lists.” Errors—false positives—mean civilians die because an algorithm decided they were threats.
What happens in Gaza does not stay in Gaza. Once refined, these tools are repackaged as solutions for domestic governance: health, immigration, welfare, and policing. Creating a de facto social credit system, where access to rights is mediated by state or private tech infrastructure. Where the risk of discrimination and exclusion is high, particularly for marginalized groups (migrants, refugees, Indigenous peoples, the elderly, homeless).
The Players: Architects of a Surveillance Society
This is not just governments. It is Big Tech corporations that design, own, and profit from the infrastructure of control:
- Palantir: defence, immigration, and health platforms for entire states.
- Oracle: national health databases, biometric replacements for passwords, constant behavioural tracking
- Microsoft: AI investments in battlefield technologies.
- Google: Project Nimbus, an AI cloud for Israeli military operations.
- Amazon: facial recognition, pattern tracking, large-scale surveillance power.
These companies are not neutral. They are enablers of war, surveillance, and propaganda—and their systems will be imported into everyday governance under the banner of “public safety.”
What It Means for Citizens: Our Rights Revocable at the Click of a Button.
- Your life in one database. Health records, travel history, biometrics, financial data—tied together, monitored, owned.
- AI deciding your future. Algorithms flag and classify, shaping access to healthcare, welfare, immigration, even basic rights—with no transparency, no appeal.
- No anonymity. Digital ID tied to social media means the end of anonymous speech. Whistleblowers, journalists, and dissidents are exposed.
- Permanent surveillance. A face, a fingerprint, a voice—things you cannot reset—become tools for lifetime tracking.
- The Gaza warning. AI kill lists and mass surveillance are being tested today. Their “successes” will be quietly transferred into domestic policing and governance tomorrow.
- A culture of war and control. Endless wars abroad justify endless surveillance at home. Democratic rights are reframed as state-granted privileges.
When debate is filtered through corporate-controlled platforms, monitored by AI, and tied to a state-backed ID system, rights stop being rights. They become conditional privileges—revocable at the click of a button.
Our Social Contract is What’s at Stake
Across treaties—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights—we are guaranteed privacy, equality, free expression, due process, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from constant surveillance.
A universal digital ID, bound to AI and biometric systems, puts all of these at risk. States are required to show necessity and proportionality for any limitation on rights. But with existing ID systems already in place, the need for a new centralized digital ID is not only questionable—it is indefensible.
This is about more than data. It is about power. A new social contract is being written for us, without consent. Unless resisted, it will govern us with the same logic now unleashed in Gaza.
Our duty is clear: to expose, to question, to resist. Before rights become nothing more than permissions.
