How much privacy will we surrender?

How would you feel if you shared confidential information with your family, only to discover that a third party had already intercepted it and was using what it knew about you to access you?

How would you feel if you lived under a system that monitored and scanned your every move in real time? Every article you read, purchase you make, donations you make, everywhere you go; how would you feel? What would that do to you mentally?

Although some practices described below may be legal or proposed as security measures, the concern is what happens when personal information becomes part of a permanent digital record. Records can be flagged, stored, connected and potentially used when legally permitted.

These concerns are taking shape in debates in: Brussels, London, Canada, Australia and at the United Nations. They can emerge incrementally. Critics are watching:

• Chat-control proposals that could expand the scanning of private communications.
• Digital currencies, such as the proposed Digital Euro, that raise questions about privacy and how payments are monitored or regulated.
• Digital ID and age-verification systems that could increasingly be used to establish eligibility for services.
• Police cameras and artificial-intelligence systems that can analyze images or identify patterns of behavior.

There is also debate over content moderation and AI rules, and how governments and technology companies should balance safety, privacy and freedom of expression.

Photographer: Philipp Katzenberger

Here in Canada, the federal government has introduced legislation proposing age-assurance measures for certain online services, including age verification or estimation. The government says these measures should protect children and privacy. Critics, however, question whether age checks could normalize broader digital identity requirements.

Here is some of the soft language used to sell these systems: Protecting children. Easier payments. Fighting misinformation. Meanwhile, critics argue that each solution can require people to surrender another piece of their privacy, independence or ability to participate without digital verification.

When these systems become interconnected, the concerns become more significant. A data system can establish who you are; when connected to other systems, it can potentially influence what services you can access, what transactions can be completed and what activities require additional verification.

You would not necessarily need to be incarcerated to feel restricted. A financial account could be frozen under lawful authority. Travel credentials could become inaccessible if eligibility requirements were not met. Online content could be removed or restricted under platform rules.

At that point, the debate is no longer simply about surveillance. It becomes a question of power: Who controls the information, who sets the rules, who can challenge decisions, and what safeguards exist when a system gets something wrong?

CitizenGO, an advocacy organization that campaigns on issues including government overreach, argues that powerful institutions, governments, technology companies, consultants and lobbyists are driving an expanding digital-governance agenda. The organization warns of what it calls digital slavery.

CitizenGO also points to the United Nations’ Global Dialogue on AI Governance. The first annual dialogue was held in Geneva on July 6th –7th, 2026. The UN describes the process as recurring, with another dialogue scheduled for May 2027. The UN’s Global Digital Compact includes digital public infrastructure and digital cooperation.

Here is what this digital push could mean:

• More of your identity may exist digitally
• More of the things you do every day could eventually depend on proving who you are digitally: working, banking, travelling, accessing public services or using online platforms

CitizenGO has also raised concerns about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). In Europe, the Digital Euro proposal moved forward in July, when Parliament backed negotiations with the Council. In Britain, the government is expanding digital options for right-to-work and right-to-rent checks.

Photographer: 1981 Digital

Think about what that could mean.

You want to work? Prove who you are to the system.

You want to access a service? Prove who you are.

Digital payments leave another digital record.

The central question is how much power society should give these digital systems, what protections should accompany that power, and whether citizens can challenge decisions made about them.

Examine the legislation, compare competing sources and decide where you stand. CitizenGO provides additional information and advocacy materials.