Understandably upbeat about modernizing a critical government service, Dr Schreiber ticks off the advantages of digital ID: curbing ID fraud and corruption, reducing administrative bottlenecks, user convenience as a centralized store of birth and marriage certificates, and enabling safe authentication for visa travel – all accessible on your smartphone.

However, there is a downside or a dark side to digital ID. Smartphones are vulnerable to hacking and cyber-attacks on internet servers, politely called glitches, which may result in data breaches. In such circumstances, one might have no means of proving ID.

Nonetheless, the Minister is aware of those possibilities and comfortingly states that having a digital ID is purely optional. One’s smart card ID will remain valid. In any case, a digital credential will have only a five-year validity period before it needs to be refreshed.

What Dr Schreiber does not state is that the digital ID portal is an extension of control by the government. Eventually, in time, the objective is to make digital ID mandatory. What Dr Schreiber does not point out is that digital ID enables the government to track significant aspects of one’s life – travel, shopping, health. As such, it is an encroachment on civil liberties because it breaches privacy and enables the government to place one under surveillance.

History shows that the aim of unchallenged governments is to consolidate their power and control over populations. To entrust the irresponsible, unaccountable ANC government with trust in not abusing the digital ID system for its nefarious political ends, is not a smart idea. The recent Afrobarometer findings show that the public trust deficit in government is in excess of 70%.

It has also always been obvious that the aim of the ANC, MK, and EFF is to realize all the policies of the Marxist Freedom Charter, which is why they favour China’s undemocratic, authoritarian population control. Digital ID enables censorship of opposition to a prescribed narrative and the entrenchment of power. Moreover, centralisation has long been recognised as the key lever in the imposition of Marxist tyranny.

The smartphone is undoubtedly an indispensable device in the 21^st century. But it is already serving as a means of violating freedoms. The EU has passed Chat control legislation, which empowers platforms to scan private messages and red-flag ones that challenge or oppose official narratives. Such violations can result in steep fines. As such, the Orwellian reality of Big Brother and Newspeak is already bearing down on Europe.

Notwithstanding Dr Schreiber’s good intentions, the following excerpt from Shakespeare’s Macbeth (Act 1, Scene 3, line 123) is most pertinent regarding truth and trust: “Oftentimes, to win us to our own harm, the instruments of darkness tell truths, win us with honest trifles to betray us in deepest consequence.”

The post Digital ID Warrants Critical Appraisal appeared first on Alt News Network.

South Africa may be standing at one of the most important crossroads for personal freedom since the dawn of democracy.

While the Department of Home Affairs says its proposed Digital Identity system will modernise government services and make life easier for citizens, growing opposition suggests the debate is about far more than convenience. At its heart lies a fundamental question: how much control should any government have over its citizens’ identities, personal information and daily lives?

That question is now being put directly to South Africa’s political parties.

Lex Libertas has formally written to every political party represented in Parliament, demanding that each publicly state whether it supports or opposes the proposed Digital ID system. The organisation argues that parties asking for the public’s vote cannot remain silent on legislation that could fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and the state.

For many South Africans, Digital ID sounds harmless. Faster services. Less paperwork. Quicker verification. Those are the promises being made.

But Lex Libertas believes South Africans need to look beyond the sales pitch.

The organisation warns that the proposed regulations could create the legal and technical foundation for something far more concerning: a centralised system capable of tracking, monitoring and controlling access to essential services if future governments choose to expand its powers.

One of the biggest concerns is surveillance.

According to the draft regulations, Digital ID verification records could be stored by the state for at least seven years. Every verification creates another digital footprint. Individually, these records may seem insignificant. Collectively, they could build an extensive picture of how citizens interact with government, businesses and public services.

Perhaps even more concerning is what Lex Libertas describes as “voluntary in theory, compulsory in practice.”

The government insists that participation will remain optional. History suggests otherwise.

Countries that introduced voluntary digital identity systems have often seen them become increasingly difficult to avoid as banks, employers, healthcare providers and other service providers gradually adopted them as their preferred form of verification. Eventually, what begins as a choice can become the only practical option.

South Africans experienced something similar during the COVID-19 lockdown years, when measures initially described as temporary or voluntary gradually became difficult to avoid in everyday life. Whether or not one agrees with that comparison, it illustrates why many citizens now view assurances of “voluntary” participation with understandable scepticism.

Then there is the question of trust.

Can South Africans realistically place their confidence in a system managed by the Department of Home Affairs?

This is the same department that has repeatedly battled system failures, extended downtime, administrative backlogs and operational challenges. Citizens have spent years standing in queues while being told the system is offline. Critics argue that before the government asks for greater control over citizens’ identities, it should first demonstrate that it can reliably manage the systems already under its responsibility.

Lex Libertas also warns that the proposed regulations would concentrate significant authority in the office of the Director-General of Home Affairs with limited independent oversight. While current officials may insist those powers would never be abused, laws are not written only for today’s government. They remain in place for future governments as well.

That is why constitutional safeguards exist.

Perhaps the organisation’s strongest warning concerns the long-term political implications.

Governments change. Policies change. Leaders change.

Infrastructure, however, often remains.

Once a comprehensive digital identity system exists, future governments inherit its capabilities. Whether those capabilities are used responsibly depends entirely on those holding power at the time. Lex Libertas argues that South Africans should think carefully before allowing any government to establish infrastructure that could one day be used in ways never originally promised.

This is no longer simply a debate about technology.

It is a debate about privacy.

It is a debate about constitutional rights.

It is a debate about government accountability.

And ultimately, it is a debate about whether convenience today could become control tomorrow.

Recognising the significance of the issue, Lex Libertas has launched its Stop Digital ID campaign and is encouraging every South African to participate in the public consultation process. The organisation says thousands of citizens have already added their voices, while it continues pressing political parties to publicly declare where they stand before voters head to the polls again.

Silence from political parties should concern every voter. If parties are unwilling to state their position on one of the most significant civil liberties debates currently facing South Africa, how can voters make informed decisions at election time?

The Department of Home Affairs’ proposal has not yet become law. South Africans still have an opportunity to influence the outcome.

But opportunities like this do not remain open forever.

If you believe privacy, constitutional rights and limits on government power matter, now is the time to act—not after the regulations have already been finalised.

The question is no longer whether Digital ID is coming.

The question is whether enough South Africans are willing to speak before the decision is made for them.

The post Lex Libertas Calls on South Africans to Push Back Against Government’s Digital ID Plans appeared first on Alt News Network.

May I remind everyone who wants to keep voting for the DA, that they are fully in support of a Digital ID system for South Africans! Yes, believe it or not, the party that claims to be a party for the people and so concerned about our freedom and democracy, wants to usher in a Utopian nightmare which would see SA become even more divided, over-regulated and unprecedented power given to one of the least trusted governments in the World, according to statistical analysis.

It is one thing to have an inept government such as the ANC, which cannot even give us clean running water or fix potholes or do anything right, but imagine giving a semi-capable party such as the DA the ability to abuse such incredible power and control over its people, such as what Digital ID could do! Looking at how Keir Starmer of the UK has terrorized his own people by, firstly opening their borders to some of the World’s most notorious terrorists, and secondly, torturing his citizens with mass surveillance and turning the UK into a digital prison where people’s actions, words and transactions are monitored daily, it must be noted that the DA’s Leon Schreiber and his cronies, who tend to lean in the direction of UK politics, is a massive risk to our fragile society.

As Ernst Roets from Lex Libertas put it so clearly and concisely in a recent podcast, on 13 June, how can Mr Schreiber guarantee us that this digitization of our identities will be governed in a way which doesn’t invade our privacy, gives online criminals the luxury of cloning or hacking our identities, and, given the SA government’s poor track record of protecting human rights and it’s ties with Communist countries such as Venezuela, Cuba and the likes, how would we ever be able to put so much of our lives in the hands of such dangerous politicians?

The time to ask serious questions is now! We cannot be led like sheep to the slaughter or, like during Covid, be blindfolded and gaslit like we were by the likes of Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma and of course, Mr Phala Phala himself, Ramaphosa! If you keep voting for the DA, who in essence is just another ‘Democrat party’, such as the one in the US, then do not expect much change to happen. In fact, giving them the power to govern unchallenged by other smaller up -and -coming parties such as the impressive FF PLUS, might only put us in danger of SA being turned into a surveillance state.

We are warned in the Great Book that such developments would take place in the future, and right now, as a Christian believer, I am concerned to see these things happening before our very eyes! Be more curious and protect your right as a human being to shop where you want to, spend your money as you wish to, and move around where you want to without being told you are not allowed to buy this, or book a flight, or open a new bank account or apply for a loan, without severe scrutiny from a government who cannot even give us basic service delivery! The DAl ikes to boast about a few victories in some metros, but when you scratch a little deeper, you will find that they are just another party trying to exert power on us, but in a different way than the ANC cadres. A vote for the DA is a vote for Digital ID. Be very careful!

The post A Vote for the DA Is a Vote for Digital ID appeared first on Alt News Network.

Understanding the official case for Digital ID systems

The transition from traditional physical identification to a centralized Digital ID framework is being marketed under the banner of modern efficiency and administrative progress. Led by the Department of Home Affairs under Minister Leon Schreiber and accelerated by President Cyril Ramaphosa, the state’s aggressive push to phase out the green barcoded ID book is framed as a solution to national security and immigration backlogs.

This policy direction is fundamentally flawed. By forcing citizens into a digital-first identity matrix, the state is not modernizing public service; it is implementing an intrusive infrastructure of permanent surveillance, exposing citizens to unprecedented cybersecurity risks, and dismantling the foundational right to privacy.

1. Technical Vulnerabilities and State Surveillance

The primary argument for the Digital ID is data security, yet digital infrastructure is inherently more vulnerable to systemic manipulation than decentralized, physical documents.

• Centralized Hacking Targets: A unified digital identity database creates a single point of failure. If state servers or cloud-based identity networks are compromised, millions of biometric and personal records are exposed simultaneously, opening the door to automated, mass identity theft.

• Continuous Tracking vs. Point-of-Use Verification: Traditional green ID books are passive instruments; they are only produced at the citizen’s discretion during specific legal or financial transactions (e.g., opening a bank account or signing a lease). A Digital ID requires a connected smart device or a continuous digital footprint, turning a simple proof of identity into a real-time tracking tool.

• The “Kill Switch” Risk: When identity is tied entirely to a digital network, the state gains the technical capability to revoke or suspend access to an individual’s legal status at the press of a button, effectively shutting a citizen out of the economy without due process.

2. The Shift Toward Influx Control

The mandate to phase out un-trackable physical documents represents a dangerous shift in the relationship between the government and the citizen.

• The Modern Dompas: Forcing citizens to rely on digital devices or smart cards to verify their daily existence mirrors historical influx control measures. Requiring a citizen to be constantly verifiable by electronic scanning networks creates a digital boundary system, restricting free movement and trade.

• Loss of Freedom of Choice: True civic freedom includes the right to remain offline. By establishing a hard deadline to invalidate the green ID book, the state eliminates choice, making participation in the digital ecosystem a compulsory requirement for citizenship.

3. Mitigating the Risks: Strategies for Citizens

For those who are concerned about this overreach, here are the practical strategies to navigate the current legislative and administrative pressure.

For Those Who Have Already Transitioned to a Smart Card/Digital ID

If you have already upgraded to the smart identity card or registered on digital platforms, your focus must shift to data minimization and privacy containment.

• Limit Biometric Interlocking: Refuse to link your digital identity to optional private services, third-party apps, or commercial loyalty programs wherever possible. Keep your state identity isolated from your daily digital footprint.

• Maintain Analog Redundancies: Keep certified physical copies of your old green ID book, past passports, and paper records of your birth registration. In a digital system failure or a legal dispute over identity access, a verified paper trail remains critical evidence of your legal status.

• Enforce Data Access Rights: Utilize existing data privacy laws (such as POPIA) to demand transparency from institutions regarding how your digital ID token is being stored, who it is being shared with, and whether it is being used for automated profiling.

For Parents Navigating the System for Their Children

The most difficult barrier is faced by parents whose children are reaching the age of 16 and require documentation for exams, tertiary education, or employment.

• Apply Under Protest/Reservation of Rights: If the department refuses to issue traditional documentation and forces a smart card/digital registration, submit a written statement alongside the application stating that the biometric registration is done under administrative duress solely to secure the child’s constitutional right to an education and legal recognition.

• Demand Minimal Data Collection: Ensure that the data captured is strictly limited to the legal minimum required by law. Oppose any supplementary data harvesting, such as optional health, financial, or educational profiling linked to the core identity number.

• Support Community-Led Legal Alternatives: Connect with local civic organizations, legal clinics, and human rights groups that are challenging the constitutionality of the hard phase-out. Collective legal actions and class-action challenges are the most effective ways to force the state to maintain a physical, non-digital option for the next generation.

Take Action Against the Digital Matrix: Do not let your silence be mistaken for consent. Join thousands of sovereign citizens who are drawing a line in the sand against state overreach. Sign the official petition to reject mandatory digital tracking and protect our fundamental freedom of choice.

Sign the petition here: Lex Libertas.

Conclusion: The Necessity of Legal Resistance

The narrative that a digitized life is inevitable is a tool used to manufacture compliance. Citizens have a legal right to demand decentralized, private forms of identification that do not subject them to constant tracking or technological vulnerability. By questioning these mandates, demanding transparent alternatives, and participating in local civic actions, the public can push back against an intrusive system and preserve the fundamental right to move, trade, and live freely.

The post The Case Against the Digital ID: A Blueprint for Algorithmic Control appeared first on Alt News Network.

This legislation has sparked significant opposition from residents, civil society, businesses, and political parties. The Democratic Alliance (DA) and the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) have voiced strong dissent. Belinda Echeozonjoku, the DA’s caucus leader in Johannesburg, criticized the law for introducing a complex and costly registration process affecting homeowners, businesses, and community policing forums that have installed CCTV cameras to protect their properties and public spaces. She argued that instead of collaborating with stakeholders to strengthen crime prevention efforts, the city is imposing additional bureaucratic hurdles, forcing residents to seek approvals, renewals, and compliance checks accompanied by undisclosed fees and penalties.

ACDP councillor Ronald Winston Harris expressed concerns about the practicality of monitoring compliance and the potential integration of private systems into public CCTV infrastructure. He questioned whether a fee structure would be implemented and how the by-law would affect those selling surveillance technology. Harris emphasized the lack of clarity regarding the intrusion into citizens’ lives, acknowledging the necessity of technology for public safety but expressing uncertainty about its impact on private citizens.

Business owners, including suppliers and installers of CCTV cameras, have indicated intentions to challenge the law. Some argue that enforcing regulations on private cameras that might record public areas is akin to attempting to regulate cellphones, which can capture similar footage when taking photos and videos.

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse’s Johannesburg Community Action Network has raised concerns about the lack of public engagement accompanying the by-law. They argue that while the legislation adds protections and regulations to ensure constitutional rights, certain implications equate to extensive overreach into individuals’ lives and private property. They emphasize the need for proper public consultation and citizen education to consider these aspects thoroughly.

The by-law stipulates that no CCTV camera can be erected, operated, or maintained without prior written approval from the city. Applicants are required to submit detailed plans, including the location, technical specifications, and the intended purpose of the surveillance system. Failure to comply with the regulations could result in severe penalties, including fines, imprisonment of up to two years, or both.

Proponents of the by-law argue that it ensures compliance with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and enhances public safety by regulating the use of surveillance technology. They contend that unregulated footage poses dangers and that the legislation requires residents with cameras facing public spaces to register with the city and display signage indicating recording, thereby informing the public. They assert that footage should only be provided to law enforcement agencies and not to unauthorized individuals.

As Johannesburg implements this by-law, the debate intensifies over the balance between public safety and individual privacy rights. The effectiveness of this regulation in achieving its intended goals while addressing the concerns raised by various stakeholders remains to be seen.

Questions to Ponder:

• Does the by-law strike an appropriate balance between enhancing public safety and protecting individual privacy rights?

• How might the registration and approval process impact residents and businesses financially and operationally?

• Could the integration of private surveillance systems into municipal oversight lead to potential misuse of surveillance data?

• What measures can be implemented to ensure that the by-law does not disproportionately affect certain communities or infringe upon civil liberties?

• How can the City of Johannesburg improve public engagement and transparency in the implementation of such regulations?

Source:mg.co.za

The post Johannesburg’s New CCTV By-Law: Safeguarding Security or Invading Privacy? appeared first on Alt News Network.