If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Discord is pressing forward with government ID checks for users in new regions, even after a major customer-support breach in October 2025 exposed sensitive identity documents belonging to tens of thousands of people. The expansion of its age-verification system reflects growing pressure under the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, a law that effectively compels platforms to collect and process personal identification data in order to comply with its censorship and content-control mandates. The October 2025 incident highlighted exactly why such measures alarm privacy advocates. Around 70,000 Discord users had images of government-issued IDs leaked after attackers gained access to a third-party customer service system tied to the company. The hackers claim to have extracted as much as 1.6 terabytes of information, including 8.4 million support tickets and over 100 gigabytes of transcripts. Discord disputed the scale but admits the breach stemmed from a compromised contractor account within its outsourced Zendesk environment, not its own internal systems. Despite the exposure, Discord continues to expand mandatory age-verification. The company’s new “privacy-forward age assurance” program is now required for all UK and Australian users beginning December 9, 2025. Users must verify that they are over 18 to unblur “sensitive content,” disable message-request filters, or enter age-restricted channels. Verification occurs through the third-party vendors k-ID and, in some UK cases, Persona, which process either a government ID scan or a facial-analysis selfie to confirm age. More: Tea App Leak Shows Why UK’s Digital ID Age Verification Laws are Dangerous Discord says that data is deleted once the age group is confirmed and that selfies used for facial estimation never leave the device. The company insists this complies with new national laws such as the UK’s Online Safety Act and Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act, both of which impose legal obligations on platforms to block access to material deemed unsuitable for minors. Yet the system effectively normalizes document-based surveillance of everyday users, often without their direct consent to vendor storage. Persona, one of Discord’s verification partners, retains submitted data for up to seven days before deletion. The 2025 breach makes these government requirements look especially reckless. It demonstrated how fragile supposedly “privacy-protective” verification chains can be once multiple third-party vendors hold fragments of ID records. Government pressure to enforce identity verification has forced platforms like Discord to collect data that, once compromised, cannot be retrieved or anonymized. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Discord Expands Age Verification ID System to More Regions appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated he is prepared to consider barring children under the age of 16 from social media, saying that “all options are on the table” to improve online protections for young people. The Government is currently reviewing measures adopted in Australia, where new restrictions have already resulted in the blocking of hundreds of thousands of accounts. Asked whether he would support a similar approach in the UK, Starmer said: “We need to better protect children from social media. We’re looking at what is happening in Australia. All options are on the table in relation to what further protections we can put in place. Whether that’s under-16s on social media or an issue I am very concerned about, under fives and screen time. Children are turning up age four at reception having spent far too much time on screens.” More: Digital ID UK: Starmer’s Expanding Surveillance State His comments reflect a growing appetite within Labour to intervene more directly in how children access digital platforms and its broader push to integrate digital ID into more aspects of life. Ministers are reportedly studying ways to strengthen age-related restrictions amid growing political and parental pressure to address potential harms linked to screen use. The Sun reported earlier this week that the Prime Minister was leaning toward a ban, with officials examining options for tighter controls. A vote in the House of Lords this week on a cross-party amendment to restrict under-16s from social media could push the matter back to the Commons for further debate. The Conservative Party has already pledged to pursue a similar ban. However, enforcing such a ban would require significant changes to how people access the internet. In order to block under-16s, social media platforms would need to introduce mandatory age verification systems, meaning that every user, not just children, would have to prove their age through digital ID checks. This would likely involve uploading government-issued identification or biometric data, creating vast databases linking real identities to online profiles. Once in place, these systems could normalize digital ID checks across the internet, turning age verification into a routine requirement for online activity. Such a move would also erode the ability to speak anonymously online. When every account must be tied to an official identity, people may self-censor out of concern that their personal details could be exposed. This would undermine one of the core principles of free expression on the internet: the right to participate in public conversation without being surveilled. The security implications are also considerable. Databases containing both adult and child identification records would become high-value targets for hackers, increasing the risk of data breaches and identity theft. While protecting children from harmful online environments is a widely shared goal, the enforcement model required to achieve it through an under-16 ban would reach far beyond child safety. It would reshape the structure of the open internet, replacing anonymous participation with an identity-verified system in which privacy becomes conditional and speech more easily traced. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Keir Starmer Considers Under-16 Social Media Ban That Could Require ID Checks for All UK Users appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Ireland’s government is preparing to require citizens to use a state-controlled “digital wallet” app to access social media platforms and adult websites, even as its own departments continue to suffer repeated data breaches. The app, being developed by the government’s chief information officer, will hold key personal identifiers such as a person’s Public Services Card and driver’s license, and could later include other credentials like a TV license. Under the proposal, social media companies will be required to use this government system to verify the age of users before granting access to their platforms. Communications Minister Patrick O’Donovan described the plan as a necessary step to address what he called the “severe public health issue” of children viewing inappropriate material online. He said downloading the digital wallet would take only “three or four minutes,” a small inconvenience, in his view, to ensure child safety. Those who refuse to use the app would lose access to their social media accounts and to websites listed on a government age-restricted schedule. Yet while the state prepares to centralize identification data under this new digital system, its own record of protecting personal information remains poor. Figures released by the Department of Defence show that 31 data breaches occurred in 2025, though only two were serious enough to be reported to the Data Protection Commission (DPC). The department offered no details on the nature or severity of these incidents. Fianna Fáil TD Cathal Crowe, who requested the information, also sought details from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Minister Helen McEntee said her department reported 123 breaches to the DPC last year. She explained that many involved misdirected or lost postal deliveries. “In addition to these data breaches, and in accordance with advice sought and received from the Office of the DPC, my Department further notifies that Office of cases of what are described as postal carrier breaches, that is, the loss or mis-delivery of documentation in the postal system,” McEntee said. Her statement continued: “This includes consignments that have been correctly addressed and dispatched by my Department to the intended recipient, often resident abroad, but subsequently lost or mis-delivered by a postal provider.” When passports or supporting documents go missing, McEntee said, the Department cancels the compromised passport and issues a replacement as standard practice. “Similarly, the Passport Service provides assistance to individuals whose supporting documents are lost when being returned to an applicant through the postal system,” she said. The Department of the Taoiseach, by contrast, reported no breaches in 2025. Historical records suggest that data mishandling across government is a persistent issue. Between 2014 and 2024, nearly 6,900 data breaches were recorded among Irish departments, according to Gript. More than half, 3,637 incidents, were linked to the Department of Social Protection, with most traced to internal mistakes such as sending correspondence to the wrong person. Many were never formally reported to the DPC because they were deemed to pose low risk. Despite this pattern, the government’s upcoming legislation would make Ireland one of the few countries where age verification for online platforms depends directly on a state-run digital ID system. O’Donovan has argued that privacy concerns should not obstruct child protection. “I think there is no other right that trumps the right of a child to be protected, and no amount of convincing of me that data protection is more important than child protection is ever going to win out,” he said. Finance Minister Simon Harris added that the new system could also help identify “online trolls.” That prompted a reaction from Elon Musk, who wrote: “What they actually want is to imprison and bankrupt those they disagree with.” A pilot of the system is expected later this year, with a General Scheme of a Bill to follow. Companies that fail to comply may face substantial fines. O’Donovan said he hopes social media platforms will cooperate voluntarily, but insisted they “can be forced” to comply by either the Irish authorities or the European Commission. Unlike Australia’s new model, which allows third-party verification, Ireland’s system would rely entirely on the state to confirm users’ ages. For a government already admitting to hundreds of data mishandling incidents each year, the idea of linking every citizen’s online presence to a centralized identity database raises deep questions about security, proportionality, and control over personal data. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Despite Dozens of Data Breaches, Ireland Plans to Tie Social Media to a State App appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Trudeau government has been handed a bruising from the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal, which ruled that the 2022 declaration of a national emergency to dismantle the trucker convoy was unlawful and unjustified. After two years of official spin about “protecting Canadians,” the court has said what critics knew from the start: the Emergencies Act was never meant for angry truckers and honking horns protesting against the erosion of civil liberties. The judges were blunt. Ottawa, they said, never had “the factual or legal foundation required” to declare a national emergency. “As disturbing and disruptive as the blockades and the convoy protests in Ottawa could be, they fell well short of a threat to national security.” In other words, the convoy may have jammed traffic, but it didn’t topple the country. The convoy started as opposition to vaccine and vaccine passport mandates, and became a rolling protest against government control. Trucks filled Ottawa’s downtown, and coffee shops ran out of patience. But none of that, the court said, amounted to a national crisis. The court agreed with Justice Richard Mosley’s earlier conclusion that the government’s use of the Emergencies Act lacked “justification, transparency, and intelligibility.” Mosley had already found that the cabinet violated Charter rights by freezing the bank accounts of people who weren’t breaking the law. The appeal judges noted there was “no evidence that the lives, health or safety of the people living in Ottawa were endangered,” calling out the “lack of rigor” in how banks decided which accounts to freeze. In some cases, financial institutions relied on media reports and social posts to decide who lost access to their money. The image of bureaucrats scrolling Facebook to decide who gets financially exiled says plenty about the chaos behind the scenes. More: Civil liberties protesters can’t pay legal fees after bank accounts were frozen by Trudeau government Howard Sapers of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called the decision “a massive and historic victory for the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.” He reminded the public that emergency powers are supposed to be a last resort, not a shortcut for bad policing. “While the extraordinary powers granted to the federal government through the Emergencies Act may be necessary in some extreme circumstances, they also can threaten the rule of law and our democracy,” he said. The government, predictably, is now reviewing the ruling and weighing an appeal. Public Safety spokesperson Simon Lafortune said Ottawa “remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.” This is the same bureaucratic language that got them in trouble in the first place. The Emergencies Act allows a declaration only when no other law can handle the situation and when there are threats “so severe” they amount to a national crisis. David Vigneault, who led Canada’s spy agency at the time, testified that while he personally supported invoking the Act, he didn’t believe the protests met the legal definition of a security threat. That didn’t stop the government from trying to stretch the definition to fit its needs. The appeal judges warned that such a loose interpretation “could stifle all kinds of protests and demonstrations that blockade pipelines, nuclear plants, railway lines, and other kinds of infrastructure to advance a cause.” The subtext was clear: if Ottawa could call this an emergency, anything could qualify. The ruling directly contradicts the 2023 Public Order Emergency Commission led by Paul Rouleau, who found that the government had met the “very high” threshold to invoke the Act. Rouleau’s report said “lawful protest descended into lawlessness,” though he admitted his conclusion came “with some reluctance.” The appeal court showed less reluctance and more spine. The judgment is a warning shot about the creeping use of executive power to crush dissent and financially deplatform critics. The Emergencies Act was written to restrain panic, not endorse it. By treating a political nuisance as a national threat, the government set a precedent that could have turned protest into a regulated privilege. The court’s decision restores the idea that inconvenience isn’t the same thing as insurrection. For those who still believe in the right to dissent, this ruling isn’t just about truckers or vaccines. It’s about whether the government can decide, on its own terms, when democracy gets to take a time-out. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Court Confirms Trudeau’s Emergencies Act Invocation Against Freedom Convoy Was Illegal appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In Florida, Senator Alexis Calatayud has introduced a proposal that could quietly reshape how millions of Americans experience the digital world. The App Store Accountability Act (SB 1722), presented as a safeguard for children, would require every app marketplace to identify users by age category, verify that data through “commercially available methods,” and secure recurring parental consent whenever an app’s policies change. The legislation is ambitious. If enacted, it would take effect in July 2027, with enforcement beginning the following year. Each violation could carry penalties of up to $7,500, along with injunctions and attorney fees. On its surface, this is a regulatory measure aimed at strengthening parental oversight and protecting minors from online harms. Yet it hits up against a larger philosophical and rights struggle. For much of modern political thought, the relationship between authority and liberty has revolved around who decides what constitutes protection. Florida’s proposal situates that question in the hands of private corporations. The bill effectively deputizes Big Tech app store operators, such as Apple and Google, as arbiters of digital identity, compelling them to verify user ages and manage parental permissions across every platform. Millions of Floridians could be required to submit identifying details or official documents simply to access or update apps. This process, while justified as a measure of security, reintroduces the age-old tension between the protective role of the state and the autonomy of the citizen. By making identity verification the gateway to digital access, the law risks creating an infrastructure in which surveillance becomes a condition of participation. It is a move from voluntary oversight to systemic authentication, merging the roles of government and corporation in a single mechanism of control. The proposal may collide with long-established constitutional principles. One of the objections lies in the concept of prior restraint. By conditioning minors’ ability to download or continue using apps on verified Big Tech platforms, the bill requires permission before access, effectively placing all expressive content behind a regulatory gate. Apps today are not mere entertainment; they are conduits of news, art, religion, and political discourse. Restricting that access risks transforming a parental safeguard into a systemic filter for speech. The burden falls most heavily on minors, whose First Amendment protections are often ignored in public debate. Even developers face new forms of coercion. They must label their content, supply age ratings, and maintain disclosure protocols. These requirements constitute a form of compelled expression, obliging creators to describe their own work within state-defined categories. The risk is a chilling effect, as smaller or independent developers avoid sensitive topics to evade potential penalties. The broader concern lies in the erosion of anonymity. The obligation for app stores to collect age verification data introduces a structural obstacle to private or pseudonymous participation online, especially in areas concerning health or political dissent. The loss of anonymity, long regarded as a cornerstone of free expression, narrows the space in which individuals can think and speak without fear of reprisal. The bill’s structure reflects a growing trend in American governance: delegating the enforcement of public norms to private intermediaries. Under SB 1722, app stores become both enforcers and adjudicators, responsible for restricting access, revoking permissions, and coordinating compliance among developers. Such delegation muddies the waters between market participation and state authority. It places speech regulation in the hands of commercial entities without traditional checks or transparency requirements. This could mean that access to lawful content might depend on the opaque policies of private corporations acting under the shadow of state mandate. Beyond questions of speech, SB 1722 reflects a deeper issue about data power. As governments increasingly enlist private firms to enforce public policy, citizens find themselves surrendering personal information not to the state directly, but to corporations operating under legal obligation. This dynamic is not unique to Florida. Across the United States and Europe, digital identity verification is emerging as the preferred tool for reconciling safety with access. Yet the accumulation of sensitive data by large platforms magnifies existing concerns about surveillance and misuse. In the name of protecting minors, the law could inadvertently expand the very data-collection practices it seeks to regulate. The state seeks to guide, parents to safeguard, and corporations to comply. But as the mechanisms of verification multiply, so too do the constraints on individual autonomy. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Florida’s “App Store Accountability Act” Would Deputize Big Tech to Verify User IDs for App Access appeared first on Reclaim The Net.