Authored by Sonia Elijah via The Brownstone Institute,
“Big Brother is watching you.”
These chilling words from George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, 1984, no longer read as fiction but are becoming a bleak reality in the UK and Canada—where digital dystopian measures are unravelling the fabric of freedom in two of the West’s oldest democracies.
Under
the guise of safety and innovation, the UK and Canada are deploying
invasive tools that undermine privacy, stifle free expression, and
foster a culture of self-censorship. Both nations are exporting their digital control frameworks through the Five Eyes alliance,
a covert intelligence-sharing network uniting the UK, Canada, US,
Australia, and New Zealand, established during the Cold War.
Simultaneously, their alignment with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030,
particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9—which mandates
universal legal identity by 2030—supports a global policy for digital
IDs, such as the UK’s proposed Brit Card and Canada’s Digital Identity
Program, which funnel personal data into centralized systems under the
pretext of “efficiency and inclusion.” By championing expansive digital
regulations, such as the UK’s Online Safety Act and Canada’s pending
Bill C-8, which prioritize state-defined “safety” over individual
liberties, both nations are not just embracing digital
authoritarianism—they’re accelerating the West’s descent into it.
The UK’s Digital Dragnet
The
United Kingdom has long positioned itself as a global leader in
surveillance. The British spy agency, Government Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ), runs the formerly secret mass surveillance
programme, code-named Tempora,
operational since 2011, which intercepts and stores vast amounts of
global internet and phone traffic by tapping into transatlantic
fibre-optic cables. Knowledge of its existence only came about in 2013,
thanks to the bombshell documents leaked by the former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence contractor and whistleblower, Edward Snowden. “It’s not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight,” Snowden told the Guardian in a June 2013 report. “They [GCHQ] are worse than the US.”
Following that is the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA)
2016, also dubbed the “Snooper’s Charter,” which mandates that internet
service providers store users’ browsing histories, emails, texts, and
phone calls for up to a year. Government agencies, including police and
intelligence services (like MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) can access this data
without a warrant in many cases, enabling bulk collection of
communications metadata. This has been criticized for enabling mass
surveillance on a scale that invades everyday privacy.
Recent expansions under the Online Safety Act (OSA)
further empower authorities to demand backdoors to encrypted apps like
WhatsApp, potentially scanning private messages for vaguely defined
“harmful” content—a move critics like Big Brother Watch,
a privacy advocacy group, decry as a gateway to mass surveillance. The
OSA, which received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023, represents a
sprawling piece of legislation by the UK government to regulate online
content and “protect” users, particularly children, from “illegal and
harmful material.”
Implemented
in phases by Ofcom, the UK’s communications watchdog, it imposes duties
on a vast array of internet services, including social media, search
engines, messaging apps, gaming platforms, and sites with user-generated
content, forcing compliance through risk assessments and hefty fines.
By July 2025, the OSA was considered “fully in force” for most major
provisions. This sweeping regime, aligned with global surveillance
trends via Agenda 2030’s push for digital control, threatens to entrench
a state-sanctioned digital dragnet, prioritizing “safety” over
fundamental freedoms.
Elon Musk’s platform X has warned that the act risks “seriously infringing” on free speech,
with the threat of fines up to £18 million or 10% of global annual
turnover for non-compliance, encouraging platforms to censor legitimate
content to avoid punishment. Musk took to X to express his personal view
on the act’s true purpose: “suppression of the people.”
In late September, Imgur (an image-hosting platform popular for memes and shared media) made the decision to block UK
users rather than comply with the OSA’s stringent regulations. This
underscores the chilling effect such laws can have on digital freedom.
The act’s stated purpose is to make the UK “the safest place in the world to be online.”
However, critics argue that it’s a brazen power grab by the UK
government to increase censorship and surveillance, all the while
masquerading as a noble crusade to “protect” users.
Another pivotal development is the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA),
which received Royal Assent in June. This wide-ranging legislation
streamlines data protection rules to boost economic growth and public
services but at the cost of privacy safeguards. It allows broader data
sharing among government agencies and private entities, including for
AI-driven analytics. For instance, it enables “smart data schemes” where
personal information from banking, energy, and telecom sectors can be
accessed more easily, seemingly for consumer benefits like personalized
services—but raising fears of unchecked profiling.
Cybersecurity enhancements further expand the UK’s pervasive surveillance measures. The forthcoming Cyber Security and Resilience Bill,
announced in the July 2024 King’s Speech and slated for introduction by
year’s end, expands the Network and Information Systems (NIS)
Regulations to critical infrastructure, mandating real-time threat
reporting and government access to systems. This builds on existing
tools like facial recognition technology, deployed extensively in public
spaces. In 2025, trials in cities like London have integrated AI
cameras that scan crowds in real time, linking to national databases for
instant identification—evoking a biometric police state.
The New York Times reported:
“British authorities have also recently expanded oversight of online
speech, tried weakening encryption, and experimented with artificial
intelligence to review asylum claims. The actions, which have
accelerated under Prime Minister Keir Starmer with the goal of
addressing societal problems, add up to one of the most sweeping
embraces of digital surveillance and internet regulation by a Western
democracy.”
Compounding this, UK police arrest over 30 people a day for “offensive” tweets and online messages, per The Times, often under vague laws, fuelling justifiable fears of Orwell’s thought police.
Yet,
of all the UK’s digital dystopian measures, none has ignited greater
fury than Prime Minister Starmer’s mandatory “Brit Card” digital ID—a
smartphone-based system effectively turning every citizen into a tracked
entity.
First announced on September 4, as a tool to “tackle
illegal immigration and strengthen border security,” but rapidly the
Brit Card’s scope ballooned through function-creep to envelop everyday
essentials like welfare, banking, and public access. These IDs, stored
on smartphones containing sensitive data like photos, names, dates of
birth, nationalities, and residency status, are sold “as the front door to all kinds of everyday tasks,”
a vision championed by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change—and
echoed by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall MP in her October 13
parliamentary speech.
This digital shackles system has sparked fierce resistance across the UK. A scathing letter, led by independent MP Rupert Lowe and
endorsed by nearly 40 MPs from diverse parties, denounces the
government’s proposed mandatory “Brit Card” digital ID as “dangerous,
intrusive, and profoundly un-British.” Conservative MP David Davis
issued a stark warning, declaring that such systems “are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people.”
On X,
Davis amplified his critique, citing a £14m fine imposed on Capita
after hackers breached pension savers’ personal data, writing: “This is
another perfect example of why the government’s digital ID cards are a
terrible idea.” By early October, a petition opposing the proposal had
garnered over 2.8 million signatures,
reflecting widespread public outcry. The government, however, dismissed
these objections, stating, “We will introduce a digital ID within this
Parliament to address illegal migration, streamline access to government
services, and improve efficiency. We will consult on details soon.”
Canada’s Surveillance Surge
Across
the Atlantic, Canada’s surveillance surge under Prime Minister Mark
Carney—former Bank of England head and World Economic Forum board
member—mirrors the UK’s dystopian trajectory. Carney, with his globalist
agenda, has overseen a slew of bills that prioritize “security” over
sovereignty. Take Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act,
introduced June 17, 2025, which enables warrantless data access at
borders and sharing with US authorities via CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful
Overseas Use of Data Act) pacts—essentially handing Canadian citizens’
digital lives to foreign powers. Despite public backlash prompting
proposed amendments in October, its core—enhanced monitoring of
transactions and exports—remains ripe for abuse.
Complementing this, Bill C-8,
first introduced June 18, 2025, amends the Telecommunications Act to
impose cybersecurity mandates on critical sectors like telecoms and
finance. It empowers the government to issue secret orders compelling
companies to install backdoors or weaken encryption, potentially
compromising user security. These orders can mandate the cutoff of
internet and telephone services to specified individuals without the
need for a warrant or judicial oversight, under the vague premise of
securing the system against “any threat.”
Opposition to this bill has been fierce.
In a parliamentary speech, Canada’s Conservative MP Matt Strauss
decried the bill’s sections 15.1 and 15.2 as granting “unprecedented,
incredible power” to the government. He warned of a future where
individuals could be digitally exiled—cut off from email, banking, and
work—without explanation or recourse, likening it to a “digital gulag.”
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and
privacy advocates have echoed these concerns, arguing that the bill’s
ambiguous language and lack of due process violate fundamental Charter
rights, including freedom of expression, liberty, and protection against
unreasonable search and seizure.
Bill C-8 complements the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63),
first introduced in February 2024, which demanded platforms purge
content like child exploitation and hate speech within 24 hours, risking
censorship with vague “harmful” definitions. Inspired by the UK’s OSA
and the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), C-63 collapsed amid fierce
backlash for its potential to enable censorship, infringe on free
speech, and lack of due process. The CCF and Pierre Poilievre, calling
it “woke authoritarianism,” led a 2024 petition with 100,000 signatures.
It died during Parliament’s January 2025 prorogation after Justin
Trudeau’s resignation.
These bills build on an alarming precedent: during the Covid era, Canada’s Public Health Agency admitted to tracking 33 million devices during
lockdown—nearly the entire population—under the pretext of public
health, a blatant violation exposed only through persistent scrutiny.
The Communications Security Establishment (CSE), empowered by the longstanding Bill C-59, continues bulk metadata collection, often without adequate oversight.
These measures are not isolated; they stem from a deeper rot, where
pandemic-era controls have been normalized into everyday policy.
Canada’s Digital Identity Program,
touted as a “convenient” tool for seamless access to government
services, emulates the UK’s Brit Card and aligns with UN Agenda 2030’s
SDG 16.9. It remains in active development and piloting phases, with
full national rollout projected for 2027–2028.
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Orwell’s 1984 warns
we must urgently resist this descent into digital
authoritarianism—through petitions, protests, and demands for
transparency—before a Western Great Firewall is erected, replicating China’s stranglehold that polices every keystroke and thought.
Republished from the author’s Substack
