{"id":95431,"date":"2026-03-20T13:13:05","date_gmt":"2026-03-20T10:13:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/?p=95431"},"modified":"2026-03-20T13:18:01","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T10:18:01","slug":"the-right-to-be-offline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/the-right-to-be-offline\/","title":{"rendered":"The right to be offline"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a world where neural networks write code and access to public services demands fingerprint scans, a movement of deliberate refusal of digital identifiers<\/a> and AI assistants is gaining ground. An emerging social group now prizes opacity over convenience.<\/p>\n

ForkLog examines why resistance to digitisation is becoming a badge of elitism, how the \u201cnew Luddites\u201d fight for anonymity and why cash is turning into a tool of political protest.<\/p>\n

A fight for reason, not against machines<\/h2>\n

The term \u201cLuddites\u201d is often, wrongly, equated with technophobia. Nineteenth-century workers did not smash machines out of fear of progress, but because factory owners deployed technology to cut wages and cheapen production. Today\u2019s resistance is of the same nature. People object not to technology per se, but to the way corporations and states use it for control and to devalue human labour.<\/p>\n

Students and professionals are increasingly shunning generative AI: according to The Washington Post<\/a>, the number who deliberately avoid neural networks is rising. Fifty percent of American adults are more concerned about the spread of artificial intelligence than enthused by it. In 2021 that figure was 37%.<\/p>\n

Despite the popularity of tools such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot, some IT specialists report reduced effectiveness. Programmers say they have to spend time fixing errors made by AI assistants.<\/p>\n

Experts also fear a degradation of skills among junior staff. Relying on AI helpers, entry-level employees risk failing to master the foundations needed for deep understanding of the craft and future mentorship.<\/p>\n

Civil servants and employees handling confidential data avoid chatbots because of the risk of leaks and inaccuracies. An employee of a US federal agency working on statistics stressed that if AI-invented data made it into official reports, public trust would be destroyed instantly.<\/p>\n

Resistance to AI is becoming part of the business strategy for creative professions. Designers and artists use Not by AI<\/span> badges to underscore the value of human work. The initiative\u2019s founder, Allen Xu, argues that without content created by people, the quality of training data for future models will inevitably fall.<\/p>\n

\"image\"
Source: the Not By AI<\/a> movement\u2019s site.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The case for abstaining is simple: why read what no one bothered to write? Shunning algorithms becomes a mark of quality. Text written by a human is valued more, like hand-crafted furniture beside IKEA flat-pack. Serious researchers reject AI not out of fear but from the conviction that meaning-making is an exclusively human prerogative that cannot be delegated to statistical models.<\/p>\n

A digital passport as a leash<\/h2>\n

Public debate also centres on Digital ID systems. In December 2025, in Britain, government plans to introduce mandatory digital cards sparked<\/a> unprecedented public outrage. A petition against the initiative gathered almost 3m signatures, becoming one of the most popular in parliamentary history. Protests were backed<\/a> by rights organisations Amnesty International and Big Brother Watch.<\/p>\n

Critics called the roll-out \u201cun-British\u201d and a violation of basic freedoms. They drew parallels with China\u2019s social-credit system, warning that tying access to basic services (transport, hotels, work) to a digital profile could lead to discrimination on political or other grounds.<\/p>\n

Conservatives, Greens, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and a large bloc of Labour backbenchers opposed the initiative. MPs stressed that the winning party\u2019s manifesto contained no pledge to introduce digital IDs, leaving the government without a mandate for such a sweeping expansion of state power.<\/p>\n

Rights advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation criticised<\/a> the government\u2019s digital-identity plan. They warned that functions inevitably expand: what begins as \u201cright to work\u201d checks quickly morphs into a universal key, without which you cannot go online, buy a train ticket or receive medical care.<\/p>\n

Gaby Hinsliff of The Guardian also disliked<\/a> the Digital ID push. In her view, such databases are a gift to any authoritarian regime. Tools created by politicians to \u201cfight illegal migration\u201d could later be used by radicals for mass deportations and to track political opponents through facial-recognition systems. She described the proposal as \u201ca \u2018hostile environment\u2019 policy in your pocket\u201d.<\/p>\n

In the end the authorities were forced to drop the idea of making the system mandatory. Britain\u2019s case is telling: even in advanced economies, societies are not ready to sacrifice privacy for the benefits of digitisation.<\/p>\n

A global push to digitise identity<\/h2>\n

Governments in many countries are moving in step to replace physical documents with digital counterparts. In the United States, mobile driver\u2019s licences (mDLs<\/a>) stored on smartphones are being actively rolled out.<\/p>\n

The main argument of lobbyists is convenience and efficiency. Chris Skinner, in the blog The Finanser<\/a>, notes that governments position Digital ID as a tool to speed up bureaucracy and keep citizens\u2019 data current. India\u2019s Aadhaar system,<\/a> which encompasses more than a billion people, is often cited.<\/p>\n

Tech giants have joined in. Apple has integrated support for government IDs into Apple Wallet. The company insists that the data are encrypted and inaccessible even to Apple. Yet user scepticism grows in proportion to the speed of deployment.<\/p>\n

Technical vulnerabilities and a \u201cphone-home\u201d feature<\/h2>\n

Cybersecurity experts point to hidden threats within the standards for digital documents. Timothy Ruff, a digital-identity specialist, has drawn attention to problems in the ISO 18013 standard underpinning mDLs.<\/p>\n

The specification provides for a \u201cserver-side retrieval\u201d mode. That creates the risk of a \u201cphone-home\u201d mechanism allowing the issuer (the state) to track where, when and by whom a credential was presented.<\/p>\n

Citizens consider politicians\u2019 promises not to use this function an insufficient guarantee of privacy.<\/p>\n

The end of anonymity online<\/h2>\n

In the US and Canada, the roll-out of Digital ID is being linked to age-verification bills and social-media regulation. In California, the case NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta<\/a> is cited. According to users\u2019 views<\/a>, requiring government ID to access online services effectively abolishes internet anonymity.<\/p>\n

There are fears that Digital ID data will be integrated with AI systems to profile citizens. That would allow corporations and authorities to track not only movements but also a user\u2019s digital trail, consumer habits and social ties.<\/p>\n

Exclusion and coercion<\/h2>\n

Critics point to the technology\u2019s discriminatory character. Making a smartphone a prerequisite for holding an ID excludes vulnerable groups, especially older people.<\/p>\n

Debates raise the argument<\/a> of \u201cforced progress\u201d: lacking a gadget or refusing Apple\/Google terms can lead to civic disenfranchisement\u2014no access to banking, medical care or even groceries. The situation is captured by a line<\/a> from a British sketch show: \u201ccomputer says no\u201d.<\/p>\n

Historical memory and mistrust<\/h2>\n

Attitudes to digital identification depend on historical experience and national cultures. In Eastern Europe, for example in Hungary, memories of totalitarian control are strong, prompting sharp rejection of any form of state registry. In Sweden, despite a high level of digitisation, citizens are sceptical of implanted NFC chips for fear of surveillance.<\/p>\n

The stand-off boils down to a choice between comfort and freedom. Governments strive for comprehensive oversight of citizens. Societies demand privacy and protection from \u201cdigital authoritarianism\u201d. For now, neither side is ready to compromise.<\/p>\n

Privacy is the new luxury<\/h2>\n

Inequality is taking a new form. The rich pay for the right to be \u201cinvisible\u201d and to deal with human beings. The poor are condemned to life under the constant gaze of algorithms.<\/p>\n