Buried within the surveillance provisions are two additional measures that would fundamentally reshape online communication in Europe. To verify the age of users as the legislation requires, service providers would need foolproof identification methods. The practical result? Every citizen would need to present government identification or submit to facial recognition scanning just to open an email or messaging account.
“This is the de facto end of anonymous communication online – a disaster for whistleblowers, journalists, political activists, and people seeking help who rely on the protection of anonymity,” warns Breyer.
The proposal also includes blanket restrictions preventing anyone under 16 from accessing WhatsApp, Instagram, online games, and essentially any platform with chat functionality.
“Digital isolation instead of education, protection by exclusion instead of empowerment – this is paternalistic, out of touch with reality, and pedagogical nonsense,” Breyer argues.
Across the Channel, similar trends are unfolding. Commentators like Joe Rogan have issued stark warnings about the United Kingdom’s rollout of digital identification systems, calling them a Trojan horse for total social control.
During a recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, the podcast host described digital ID as the ultimate instrument of state and corporate power—presented under the guise of convenience but designed for domination. Rogan argued that requiring biometric data such as facial recognition or retinal scans to access services will create a society where governments and tech giants can monitor, limit, and punish behavior in real time.
“What it’s really doing is allowing something—whether it’s the government or big tech—more control over you,” Rogan said, warning of a near-future scenario where authorities could restrict citizens’ ability to buy meat, travel freely, or even access financial services based on “carbon footprint” or “social credit” scores.
He pointed to the UK’s growing crackdown on online speech as evidence that such tools will not remain benign. Rogan highlighted that British police have arrested over 12,000 people for social media posts—compared to just 400 arrests in Russia during the same period.
“Any criticism of immigration, any criticism of grooming gangs and people being raped—they come visit you,” Rogan said, describing footage of a British judge sentencing a citizen to prison for “normal complaints about mass immigration.”
For Rogan, the convergence of digital ID and state surveillance represents “an Orwell nightmare coming to life right in front of our face.” His warning echoes the fears voiced by privacy advocates across Europe: that once biometric identity becomes mandatory for online access, true dissent and privacy will vanish under algorithmic governance.
Perhaps most concerning is the method by which this legislation is advancing. Multiple European governments—including those of Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Czechia, Luxembourg, Finland, Austria, and Estonia—previously voiced strong opposition to mass surveillance measures. Yet the current proposal is moving forward through working group channels that require less public scrutiny and accountability.
Breyer is calling on these governments to exercise their veto power before it’s too late.
“Now, these governments must show some backbone!” he demands. “Block this sham compromise in the Council and demand immediate corrections to save the fundamental rights of all citizens.”
His suggested revisions include clarifying that scans cannot be enforced as risk mitigation measures, restricting any scanning to known illegal material rather than speculative text analysis, allowing only court-ordered targeted surveillance of actual suspects, and eliminating mandatory age verification that would destroy anonymous communication.
“They are selling us security but delivering a total surveillance machine,” Breyer concludes. “They promise child protection but punish our children and criminalize privacy. This is not a compromise – this is a fraud against the citizen. And no democratic government should make itself an accomplice.”