The Right to Be Offline - ForkLog: cryptocurrencies, AI, singularity, future

# The Right to Be Offline

In a world where neural networks write code and access to government services requires fingerprint scanning, a movement of conscious refusal of digital identifiers and AI assistants is gaining strength. The emerging social group prioritizes “transparency” over convenience.

ForkLog has explored why resistance to digitalization is becoming a mark of elitism, how the “new Luddites” fight for the right to anonymity, and why cash is turning into a tool for political protest.

The Fight for the Mind, Not Against Machines

The term “Luddites” is often mistakenly equated with technophobia. But 19th-century workers broke machines not out of fear of progress, but because factory owners implemented technologies to reduce wages and lower production costs. Modern resistance has the same roots. People oppose not technology itself, but how corporations and governments use it to control and devalue human labor.

Students and professionals increasingly refuse generative AI: according to The Washington Post, the number of those who principledly avoid neural networks is growing. 50% of American adults are more concerned about the widespread adoption of AI than excited by it. In 2021, that figure was 37%.

Despite the popularity of tools like ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot, some IT specialists note a decline in work efficiency. Programmers report spending more time fixing errors made by AI assistants.

Experts also fear skill degradation among junior staff. Juniors relying on AI helpers risk not mastering the fundamentals necessary for deep understanding of their profession and future mentorship.

Civil servants and employees handling confidential data avoid chatbots due to risks of leaks and inaccuracies. A U.S. federal agency statistician emphasized that if fabricated data generated by neural networks enters official reports, public trust will be instantly destroyed.

Resistance to AI is becoming part of business strategy for creative professions. Designers and artists use Not by AI badges to emphasize the value of human labor. Allen Xu, founder of the initiative, believes that without human-created content, the quality of training data for future models will inevitably decline.

Source: Not By AI movement website. The argument is simple: why read what no one bothered to write? Rejecting algorithms becomes a mark of quality. Human-written text is valued higher, like handcrafted furniture compared to IKEA mass production. Quality researchers reject AI not out of fear, but because they believe that meaning-making is exclusively a human prerogative that cannot be delegated to statistical models.

Digital Passport as a Collar

Public resistance also revolves around Digital ID systems. In December 2025, the UK government’s plans to introduce mandatory digital cards caused unprecedented public outrage. A petition against the initiative gathered nearly 3 million signatures, making it one of the most popular in parliamentary history. Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Big Brother Watch supported the protests.

Critics called the implementation of such systems a “non-British” step and a violation of basic freedoms. They drew parallels with China’s social credit system, warning that linking access to basic services (transport, hotels, employment) to a digital profile could lead to discrimination based on political or other motives.

Opposing the initiative were conservatives, Greens, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, and a significant portion of Labour backbenchers. MPs pointed out that the digital ID proposal was not part of the victorious party’s pre-election manifesto, meaning the government lacked a mandate for such a broad expansion of state powers.

Digital Frontier Foundation rights advocates criticized the government’s plan to launch a digital identification system. They warned that the functions of digital IDs will inevitably expand. What begins as a “work eligibility check” quickly turns into a universal key—without which it will be impossible to access the internet, buy train tickets, or receive medical care.

Gabi Hinsliff of The Guardian also disapproved of the Digital ID initiative. She sees such databases as a gift to any authoritarian regime. Tools created by politicians to combat illegal migration could, in the future, be used by radicals for mass deportations and tracking political opponents through facial recognition systems. Hinsliff described the proposal as “a ‘hostile environment’ policy in your pocket.”

Ultimately, authorities had to abandon the idea of making the system mandatory. The situation in Britain is indicative: even in developed economies, society is not ready to sacrifice privacy for the benefits of digitalization.

The Global Trend Toward Digital Identity

Governments worldwide are simultaneously promoting initiatives to replace physical documents with digital counterparts. For example, in the U.S., mobile driver’s licenses (mDLs) are actively being implemented, stored on smartphones.

The main argument from technology advocates is convenience and efficiency. Chris Skinner, in The Finanser blog, notes that governments position Digital ID as a tool to accelerate bureaucratic procedures and update citizen data. The Indian Aadhaar system, covering over a billion people, is often cited as an example.

Tech giants have joined the process. Apple integrated support for government-issued IDs into Apple Wallet. The company claims that data is encrypted and inaccessible to itself. However, user skepticism grows proportionally with the speed of implementation.

Technical Vulnerabilities and the “Call Home” Function

Cybersecurity experts point out hidden threats within the standards of digital documents. Timothy Roff, a digital identity specialist, highlighted issues with ISO 18013, the standard underlying mDLs.

The regulation provides for a “server retrieval” mode of data access. This creates a risk of a “call home” mechanism, allowing the issuing authority (the government) to track where, when, and by whom the document was presented.

Citizens consider politicians’ promises not to use this function as insufficient guarantees of privacy protection.

The End of Anonymity Online

In the U.S. and Canada, the adoption of Digital ID is linked to bills on age verification and social media regulation. Notably, California’s NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta case. Users believe that requiring government IDs to use online services effectively destroys anonymity on the internet.

There are concerns that Digital ID data will be integrated with AI systems for profiling citizens. This would enable corporations and authorities to track not only movements but also digital footprints, consumer habits, and social connections.

Social Exclusion and Coercion

Critics point out the discriminatory nature of the technology. Mandatory smartphones for storing IDs exclude vulnerable populations, especially the elderly.

Discussions include the argument of “forced progress”: lacking a device or refusing to accept terms of use from Apple/Google could lead to civil rights violations—such as being unable to access banking, medical services, or even buy groceries. The situation is summed up by a phrase from a British sketch show: “the computer says no.”

Historical Memory and Distrust

Attitudes toward digital identification depend on historical experience and cultural context. In Eastern Europe, for example in Hungary, memories of totalitarian control evoke strong rejection of any form of state surveillance. In Sweden, despite high digitalization, citizens are skeptical of implanted NFC chips due to fears of monitoring.

The confrontation boils down to a choice between comfort and freedom. Governments seek full control over citizens, while society demands the right to privacy and protection from “digital authoritarianism.” Currently, neither side is willing to compromise.

Privacy as a New Luxury

Social stratification takes on a new form. The wealthy pay for the right to be “invisible” and interact with real people. The poor are condemned to live under constant surveillance by algorithms.

• For the elite: meetings without phones, children’s education without screens, private clinics with live doctors, cash payments or anonymous tools;
• For the masses: AR glasses tracking every glance, AI tutors for education, biometric identification for access to basic services.

Research from the Institute of Development Studies shows that digital IDs promoted under the banners of inclusion actually deepen inequality. People without smartphones or internet access, or with low digital literacy, are excluded from social participation. If access to bank accounts or benefits requires face recognition and a smartphone, poverty becomes synonymous with digital slavery.

Counterculture of Physical Media

In response to total digitalization, demand for analog experiences is rising—a conscious choice of physical interaction with the world. This is not nostalgia but a form of protecting personal sovereignty:

• Cash: using cash becomes an act of civil disobedience against systems tracking every transaction. Financial privacy is seen as a fundamental part of freedom;
• Physical media: vinyl, tapes, paper books can be remotely edited or confiscated by censors or due to license expiration;
• Dumb phones: increasing sales of feature phones without GPS or apps are ways to escape data brokers’ reach.

The emerging class of “digital resisters” proves that technology should remain a tool in human hands, not a system defining social status. The right not to be digitized, recognized, or predicted by algorithms is becoming the main political demand of the decade.