The contemporary debate over digital identity often focuses on technological threats like hacking and data leaks. Yet, the deepest philosophical objection is rooted in history: identity documentation has never been a neutral administrative process. It has almost, always devolved into a mechanism of state control, capable of being weaponized to classify, restrict, and ultimately suppress entire populations.

The historical trajectory of identification — from paper passes used to enforce racial segregation to modern biometric systems linked to behavioral scoring — reveals a consistent truth: the architecture designed for governmental efficiency is often perfectly suited for political oppression. The shift to digital identity merely amplifies this risk, transforming the possibility of state scrutiny into the infrastructure for an inescapable, Orwellian state.

Even The Romans Had Citizen Identification

The Roman Empire employed a centralized and rigorous system of identity management, primarily based on the census and the formal legal status of citizenship (civitas).

The primary administrative tool for managing the population was the census, which was conducted every five years. This process required every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted and recorded.

This centralized registration system served several crucial administrative and political functions such as taxation and privilege, citizenship records, etc.

While general citizens were tracked via census rolls, specific documents were issued for certain groups. A notable example is the Roman military diploma. This was a bronze tablet issued to non-citizen auxiliary soldiers upon completion of their 25-year service term, serving as a certificate of discharge and providing tangible proof of the award of Roman citizenship to the holder and his family, which conferred significant rights.

I. The Manual Precedent: Identity as a Gatekeeper

Long before the advent of blockchain and facial recognition, physical identity documentation was leveraged as a tool to manage and restrict the movement and economic participation of specific groups.

The most notorious example is the South African Pass Laws. Introduced as early as 1797 to prevent Africans from entering the Cape Colony, these laws intensified significantly with the rise of the mining sector in the 1880s. The goal was explicit: to control workers’ mobility and ensure the enforcement of labor contracts.

Under the apartheid system, these became a comprehensive system of internal passports. Black South Africans were required to carry a pass document, derogatorily known as the dompas (Afrikaans for ‘stupid pass’), which served to racially segregate the population, severely restrict movement, and confine individuals to designated areas. The police could demand this pass at any time, making it the central mechanism for the enforcement of systemic human rights abuses until its effective termination in 1986.

Such history establishes a critical pattern: linking identity documents to economic opportunity (the right to work) and spatial movement transforms the ID from a simple proof of self into an instrument of systemic control. When a government mandates a digital ID for “right to work” checks, as seen in the present-day UK proposal , it is a technological modernization of this ancient philosophical mechanism of control.

II. Misuse in Democracies: The Administrative Weapon

The risk of suppression is not confined to totalitarian regimes. Even within established democracies, data collected for benign administrative purposes has been seized and weaponized during moments of national crisis or public hysteria. These cases demonstrate that the danger is not solely the collection of new data, but the political decision to correlate and use existing authoritative data against minority groups.

A powerful historical example involves the United States’ use of census data during World War II. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the government utilized this census data to identify people of Japanese heritage in the country, leading to their subsequent internment. A more recent instance of data abuse involved the targeting of Arab-Americans using demographic information in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

In both cases, existing administrative information — collected legally and often under the promise of anonymity — was correlated and deployed against a targeted population. These incidents underscore a profound vulnerability: the danger stems less from whether the data is manual or digital, and more from the state’s capacity to correlate and use that data against its own citizens when political will demands it.

III. The Digital Leap: Towards the Orwellian State

The introduction of mandatory, centralized digital identity systems fundamentally changes the relationship between state scrutiny and citizen behavior. George Orwell’s warnings about constant state scrutiny are no longer science fiction; digital technologies have created minutely detailed records of our lives.

When a government makes a digital ID the single, verifiable proof of identity and residency , it establishes the master infrastructure necessary to link all these disparate data sources — tax records, health files, movement tracking, and communication analysis — to one single, immutable identity profile.

This structure enables persistent, comprehensive state scrutiny. The government’s ability to acquire and use this correlated data for “unknown purposes” has a powerful chilling effect on free expression and dissent. Citizens, aware that their activities and communications are constantly subject to review and potential punishment, self-censor. This environment silently expands state power and undermines democratic principles.

The path to an Orwellian State (a regime of total control) is paved through the creation of this mandatory, interoperable digital linkage. The infrastructure established for administrative efficiency is perfectly suited for total surveillance, allowing for the incremental addition of enforcement layers—such as behavioral scoring or political compliance monitoring—which become technically trivial once the core database is established.

IV. Case Study: Weaponizing Digital Identity for Political Control

The People’s Republic of China provides the clearest contemporary example of a digital identity infrastructure being weaponized for comprehensive political repression.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) employs extensive mass surveillance measures, utilizing technologies such as AI, facial recognition, fingerprint identification, voice and iris recognition, big data analysis, and DNA testing. Crucially, these systems are closely linked to the Social Credit System (SCS).

The SCS functions as a vast mechanism of control enforced through a sophisticated system of penalties and rewards. By linking a citizen’s verifiable digital identity to all their online and offline actions, the state can enforce political and ideological compliance, leveraging its immense power structure to enforce the leadership’s interpretation of policy.

Consequences for citizens engaging in “dissenting deeds” or articulating “nonconforming sentiments” can include detention, incarceration, or restrictions on mobility. This case study serves as a definitive warning: when centralized identity architecture is combined with comprehensive surveillance and enforcement mandates, the digital ID ceases to be an administrative tool and transforms into the state’s most powerful instrument for maintaining power and eroding fundamental rights.

Conclusion

The history of identity documentation reveals that classification is always a prerequisite for control. Whether via the paper dompas or a centralized digital ledger, identity systems grant the state immense power to define, locate, and restrict its citizens. In the digital age, this power is made faster, more comprehensive, and less visible.

To avoid building the architecture of our own suppression, civil society must demand systems that prioritize structural barriers against state abuse. The next article in this series will explore the vital alternative: shifting power away from centralized government databases and placing the sovereignty of data squarely in the hands of the citizen.

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pass_law

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-id-scheme-explainer/digital-id-scheme-explainer

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/will-make-it-tougher-to-work-illegally-uk-to-introduce-digital-id-for-workers-how-it-will-work/articleshow/124154707.cms

U.S. History of Census Data Abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression

China’s ‘Ides of Control’ and Social Credit System