Digital tyrants want your face, your ID … and your freedom



Thomas Sowell’s warning fits the digital age with brutal precision: There are no solutions, only trade-offs. When governments regulate technology, they seize your privacy first. Every “safety” mandate becomes an excuse to collect more personal data, and the result is always the same. Bureaucrats claim to protect you while making you more vulnerable.

Age-verification laws illustrate this perfectly. Discord’s recent breach — more than 70,000 stolen government ID photos taken from a third-party vendor — shows how quickly privacy collapses once platforms are forced to gather sensitive data.

Millions of citizens should not be forced to trade away privacy because policymakers refuse to acknowledge the risks.

To comply with the U.K.’s new Online Safety Act, Discord began collecting users’ documentation. That data became a target, and once breached, attackers reportedly demanded a multimillion-dollar ransom and threatened to publish the stolen IDs. Discord failed to monitor its vendor’s security practices, and thousands paid the price.

Age-verification mandates require digital platforms to confirm a user’s age before granting access to specific content or services. That means uploading government IDs or submitting to facial scans. The stated goal is child safety. The actual effect is compulsory data surrender. These laws normalize the idea that governments can force citizens to hand over sensitive information just to use the internet.

Centralized data collection creates a jackpot for cybercriminals. As the Discord breach proves, one compromise exposes thousands — or millions — of users. Criminals can sell this information, reuse it for identity theft, or weaponize it for blackmail. The problem isn’t a one-off failure. It is structural. Age verification mandates require platforms to create consolidated databases of personally identifying information, which become single points of catastrophic failure.

The libertarian Cato Institute captures the problem: “Requiring age verification creates a trove of attractive data for hackers that could put broader information about users, particularly young users, at risk.”

Governments may insist that the Discord breach was an outlier. It wasn’t. Breaches of sensitive information are predictable in systems designed to aggregate it. Even if the motives behind the U.K.’s age-verification regime were noble, undermining privacy to advance those aims is a trade-off free societies should reject. That is why the Online Safety Act triggered an outcry far beyond the U.K.

And, as usual, legislative mandates fail to achieve their stated goals. Days after the OSA took effect, VPN downloads surged as users — including children — bypassed verification systems. Laura Tyrylyte, Nord Security’s head of public relations, told Wired that “whenever a government announces an increase in surveillance, internet restrictions, or other types of constraints, people turn to privacy tools.” Predictably, age-verification laws encourage evasion instead of compliance.

RELATED: The UK wants to enforce its censorship laws in the US. The First Amendment begs to differ.

mikkelwilliam via iStock/Getty Images

The pattern is simple: Age-verification laws degrade privacy, heighten the risk of identity theft, and fail to keep minors off restricted platforms. They make the internet less safe for everyone.

Meanwhile, policymakers remain determined to spread these mandates in the name of protecting children. The U.K. pioneered the model. Many other governments followed. Twenty-five U.S. states have adopted similar laws. The list grows each month.

But governments cannot treat data breaches as acceptable collateral damage. Millions of citizens should not be forced to trade away privacy because policymakers refuse to acknowledge the risks. The result of this approach will be more surveillance, more breaches, more stolen personal data, and a steady erosion of civil liberties.

Privacy is the backbone of liberty in a digital world. Thomas Jefferson’s warning deserves repetition: “The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”

Age-verification mandates accelerate that progress — and citizens pay the price.

How a ‘C’ paper at Yale became a $54 billion global empire



The “C” grade FedEx founder Fred Smith received from a Yale professor on a paper outlining his vision for an overnight delivery service is much less remarkable than is often assumed. Naturally, Smith got a C. Rest assured that most investors gave him an F, assuming they bothered to hear Smith’s pitch in the first place.

Evidence supporting the above claim can be found in the billions Smith left behind, along with the market cap ($54 billion) of FedEx itself. Smith’s wealth and FedEx’s valuation are evidence of Smith’s entrepreneurial genius — his ability to see what others couldn’t, to act decisively, and to execute brilliantly on a vision that defied conventional wisdom.

At least rhetorically, Donald Trump sees interconnectivity as impoverishing. That’s too bad.

Stop and contemplate the miraculous nature of Smith’s innovation. No doubt many wished they could have next-day or two-day delivery. But as Smith’s billions yet again indicate, his greatest insight was in figuring out how to solve a problem that appeared insolvable: how to profitably move documents around the U.S. and around the world overnight. Investors didn’t believe it could be done, which is why opposite-thinking, passionate people like Smith are so crucial to progress.

Which brings us to economist Joseph Schumpeter’s notion of “creative destruction.” It was his way of saying that great business ideas are routinely replaced by even better ones. Stasis is death in business.

Adapt or die

Smith knew this well. Miraculous as overnight delivery was, the proliferation of fax machines in the 1970s and '80s could have been an existential threat to FedEx. Same with email, PDF attachments, hyperlinks, and eventually DocuSign in the 1990s and beyond.

The easy move would have been to sell or shut down what technology was rapidly rendering dated — but that wasn’t Smith. A free thinker to the core, according to people like Cato Institute co-founder Ed Crane (Smith served on Cato’s board), who knew him well, Smith no doubt grasped that a world increasingly connected by split-second technology would be a prosperous one. And prosperous people don’t just want market goods — they want them quickly.

RELATED: The tax trick pitting old-guard Republicans against the populist new right

Photo by Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

While many entrepreneurs might have sold in the face of a technological onslaught, Smith kept on building. He pivoted his business to become more valuable — ironically, the more free-market forces rendered FedEx’s initial purpose dated and obsolete. Documents were to FedEx what books were to Amazon: just the test case for a business concept that would have even greater purpose the more the world thrived based on the connectivity that had, in so many ways, vitiated FedEx’s original business.

Smith’s lesson for Trump

The free, rapid movement of people and communications was only existential for Smith and FedEx insofar as he was unwilling to pivot. In other words, the free trade that Smith venerated didn’t victimize him or, for that matter, any entrepreneur capable of seeing that prosperity born out of open trade frequently creates even better lines for businesses to expand into. That’s why FedEx didn’t die long ago. Smith was too smart — not just for Schumpeter, but also for President Donald Trump.

At least rhetorically, Trump sees interconnectivity as impoverishing. That’s too bad. As Smith’s towering achievements indicate, the only true barriers to prosperity are those that separate producers from one another.

It’s a long way of saying Trump could learn from Smith’s constant evasion of creative destruction. The latter isn’t just an understatement — it’s also urgent.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearMarkets and made available via RealClearWire.

If Only Ukraine-Loving Senate Republicans Put Americans First For Once

While Senate Republicans rush to punish Putin, they dither on cutting taxes, shrinking government, and securing the border.

Expert Says Congressional Republicans’ Plan To Curb CISA’s Criminal Censorship Practices Is Ineffective And ‘Sloppy’

An appropriations bill passed by the House and awaiting approval in the Senate will supposedly inhibit the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from engaging in censorship, but a homeland security expert is not convinced. CISA, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is described as the “nerve center” of federal government censorship. It is responsible for […]

Conservative Groups Sue To Block Biden Loan Forgiveness After SCOTUS Decision

The plaintiffs also claim that such programs would affect their hiring
Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Why is the government arming more federal bureaucrats than US Marines?

The idea that agencies are empowered to effectively create their own laws and go out and enforce them with armed federal agents should be alarming.

Threat Of Nuclear War Reminds Us Why Selling Out Manufacturing To China Was A Horrible Idea

For the sake of America’s peace, prosperity, and security, we must refocus and revive our domestic manufacturing industry.

Think Tank Egghead: Caring About US Manufacturing Is Just A ‘Fetish’

'The fetish for manufacturing is part of the general fetish for keeping white males'