On the AI Road that Leads to Identity Hell

Life with no personality but with identity based on online activities…

New Sustainable Habitat

As we know, a notion of personal identity and Identity Management (IM) are frequently mixed, creating a misreading and speculations about “which one leads the dance”. An appearance of AI has finally put some light on the purpose of this strange misture.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals are defined in such a way that every human being living on Earth should be included regardless of whether this one knows about it or not or whether this one wants this or not. Many monarchs in human history claimed that their duty is to keep their subjects happy – healthy and safe. Obviously, in the meaning suggested by the monarch. The similarity of these two concepts is outstanding.

One of the mandatory preconditions for the UN Sustainable Development Goals is the ability to refer to every person in the world, but all of them are different, live different lives, and do different things in different places on the planet. The simplest way to avoid dealing with these varieties of individual specifics is … to ignore them. In other words, to unify people using a standardised identity. However, many people would disagree if their Personas were ignored. To suppress such a resistance, everyone should become individually controllable.

The modern movement of the technology of artificial intelligence in the linguistic area – generative AI – is aimed at creating a digital unification over the people regardless of their self-identification, consciousness and desires. Certain AI products are engaged to plant in people’s minds that their activities online represent their personality and constitute their identities. This is the argument to start treating you as a digital cause and use traces you leave online as your identity input contributors. You as a digital cause are a new concept in people’s society brought by technology for the sake of technology, not for people.

Under the cover of a good intention like “AI must augment human capabilities without eroding fundamental rights or identity”, the leftist “science” has started to argue that “AI challenges human autonomy, agency [self-control], and cognitive processes” that jointly change a “human identity” (a self-identity).  

This is absurd at the same level as saying that if you ride a horse or donkey or elephant or camel, this changes your identity. In the communistic Soviet Union, there was a byword: “You are nobody without a paper, but with a paper, you are a person.” Now, I can say that without an AI-enabled digital identity, you are nobody.

To prove this Forth Revolution deepfake, they trick and ask if you have to access a resource online; how the resource provider can be sure that you are the one you claim you are? You may be confused – why do I have access to a resource online? The answer is very simple – because we will allow only online access to your vital resources. The next part of this trick is, why should I care how the resource provider can verify that I am the one I claim to be? The answer is the same – because if the resource provider cannot verify your identity, you won’t be permitted to access the resource. 

A social organisation where some rulers or governors provide only online access to life-essential goods and require you to have or to be attached to a digital identifier managed by the rulers is known as a “digital concentration camp”where you are guarded by the “camp wards” who ensure that you are tied to online communication and distribution channels.

So, the aforementioned mixture of identity and IM is needed to force you to accept that identity, which “camp wards can easily verify regardless of your own cognisance. The “digital identity for physical persons” (DIPP) has been synthesied for this purpose. In a moment, I’ll provide a few extracts from different sources describing DIPP, and you will be able to easily find that the proposed identification is anchored to

1) person’s online activities ;

2) all-time monitoring or spying on the person via any digital means (no monitoring – no way to collect data to profile the person).

These anchors are the essential elements of DIPP required for the “digital concentration camp” envisioned by WEF or the United Nations and WTO. So, if your online activities are minimal or none, you become invisible to “camp wards” that frighten them; you become their potential enemy instead of a brainless slave. As a precaution, your digital identity can be disqualified by an identity controller, irrespective of whether you physically exist or not.

The last element of the “digital concentration camp” not mentioned yet is making all vital human resources initially accessible only via online interfaces. For example, if an executive authority provides such services as discounts for using electricity and gas in winter, or sending parcels, or even entering into a payment network via shop tills, it can exclude you from using these services by simply blocking your DIPP without notifications to you.  This may be a punishment for disobeying authority’s directive even if the latter violate your citizenship rights. Yes, you can go to a court, but for how long would you be able to stay without food or electricity?

Believe it or not, but DIPP can become a very powerful instrument in the hands of neo-Marxists who dream of creating a “socialistic” world government over the entire human society.

Now, here are a few examples of original explications of digital identity. Do not be tricked by nice words; penetrate your view into the depth of the combined meaning:

1. Digital identity “is a set of data that uniquely identifies a person, organization, application, or device on the internet” .

2. “It is used to verify the identity …  Your name, email address, date of birth, home address, IP address, and social media profiles are the main contributors to your digital identity. Your digital ID is your online persona. It is how you navigate the web, interact, and authenticate yourself for services like social media, banking or work meetings. It also extends beyond individuals to organisations, devices, and software, creating a trusted network“. Well, you as a human do not have an “IP address and social media profiles” – these are the ‘things’ assigned to you by the “camp wards”. If access to the life resources – from birth to grave – is available to you only via online means, “our digital ID“ is not “your online persona” anymore – it is you as a persona in your physical life.

3. Your activities online are only your activities, but this is what the “camp wardens” can get on (about) you and use to identify you. To mask their real goals, they say that “a good digital ID is verified, unique, privacy-focused, and gives users control over their data.“ Everything about “privacy-focused and gives users control over their data“ is a deepfake because “The future of legal identity will focus on using biometrics such as face, fingerprint or iris…  [ if this is a privacy, it is is the privacy in devil’s terms, not human’s] Governments and state agencies can register and authenticate their population, ensuring people are who they claim to be.  The UN has recognised that when citizens of a country have legal identity, there are also often better human rights and development agendas – and so ‘legal identity for all, including birth registration’ has been established as one of the UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030”.

It is difficult to add anything – the UN openly tells that with “the future …legal identity”you become a sheep, or ‘mouton’, or moron recognised by your iris. If you lose your eye, you become a nobody. If you make a nice haircut or grow a beard, you become a nobody; if you get a gum inflammation , you become a nobody. The “camp wards” want to calm down frightened people saying that verification will be of 3 levels like weak, medium and strong.Who would care about this if weak and  medium may be treated in same way – you can be becomes suspicious in attempting to trick the system, i.e. should be restrained.  

Apple, producer of smartphones, has proved that your fingerprints are not a reliable identity of yours because they can be easily counterfeited; the same will relate to face recognition and even iris. So, the choice is yours – either you are sticking to your digital identity or you disappear from society. That is, the identity drives you, but the other way round as it should be.

Later on, I will discuss a face recognition methods, Meanwhile, I only outline that according to the EU AI Act, using face recognition is highly restricted and may not be used without your consent except if it is permitted by a judge for your case. Monitoring you using face recognition technology in public places, e.g., during demonstrations or in the streets, is prohibited as well. This is how the EU’s human-centric approach to identity differs from the ruler-centric one.

Thus, this digital identity is fraudulent by its nature.

Believing in Deepfake is the Ticket to Hell

The example below outlines the level of misinformation that accompanies a notion of digital identity.

“In today’s digital age, AI Changing Identity is more than just a buzzword. It represents a shift in how you perceive and present yourself online. AI helps you create digital identities that reflect your personality and preferences”. As a free person, I can represent myself online in any way I want and change my representation at any time. However, the “camp wards” do not think so; they do not want me to be free, and they create a digital identity of mine – it is not an identity but a slavery chain on my neck.

“You can now craft online personas and avatars that mirror your real-world identity or explore entirely new facets of yourself.” Really? Are you so naive? How do “camp wards” justify that an avatar does “mirror your real-world identity” rather than it reflecting your intention to pretend to be the one you are not, i.e., the avatar can easily be an identity disinformation? The “camp wards” insist that acting online you express yourself, which is false. Indeed, “Are these digital personas a true reflection of who you are, or do they blur the lines between reality and fiction?” 

Here is another attempt to persuade us that we are not who we are but what we demonstrate online. Once again, if you are not online, you are nobody (because the “camp wards” cannot watch you). Here you are, “AI uses our online data to create a digital version of us.” Has any one of us consented to whatever AI to do this? I have not. I distrust AI (this is why “camp wards” insist on unconditionally trusting AI with no verification). I can be enforced using online access to sources of my life, but this is the tyranny realised via a digital concentration camp.  Here it is: “Companies like Facebook and Google use AI to make content just for us. This might seem good, but it changes how we see ourselves and how others see us too.”

The “camp wards” try to convince you that regular content created by Facebook and Google for the person, known for decades as personalisation of the Web content, “changes how we see ourselves”. This is the fake aiming to your subconscious. Even a common person unfamiliar with identities and AI says that this statement is silly and ridiculous: no content – online or on paper – can change how a person sees him- or herself. Though, no rule is without an a exception – a strain of stupid pinky ponies care about how “popular” they are among other ponies who are busy with “liking” foolish posts about their morning toilets. Plainly, a fewer number of ‘likes” means that the pony is a loser, which goes without saying anyway.

The arguments that “AI technology shapes self-identity. AI affects our self-image in many ways. From Spotify playlists to Twitter feeds, AI keeps shaping our identity. As we use these technologies more, our online and real-life selves get mixed up” is a total rubbish that the “camp wards” want people to believe in. Otherwise, people would easily understand, disagree and protect themselves from the enforced replacing of their personalities with digital identifiers.

At the Doorstep of Hell

For the last few years I have heard the Phaedrus’ expression “Things are not always what they seem”, in some variations more and more frequently. Before, in the socialistic block, this expression was simplified and more laconic – “don’t believe your eyes”. I think that this cognitive transformation is not accidental. We have to be grateful for the recent left-wing activity led by the WEF and capitalising on the global digitalisation, especially AI, for this. With AI, the “camp wards” can represent “black” as “white” or “false” as a “truth”. But this is not all – they want us to believe in this fake; if we don’t, they would not be able to manage us.

Any and every social group requires management for the daily activity processes because people’s actions may be complex and lasting in time. In essence, people prefer that the management be conducted for the benefit of people, i.e., the manager or a ruler serves people’s needs. This is what I take as a human centricity. In contrast, the ruler’s centricity is the other way around – the ruler sees the people as material needed to deliver benefits for the rulers; with a deeper understanding of the rulers’ concept, if people do not benefit them, the people are not really needed (as straightforward cynical reasoning suggests). However, a smart ruler would never publicly admit this cynicism using words that sound right but mean wrong.

According to ComputerWorld online magazine, “The UK government has offered some clarity on the future of private and public sector digital identity services…to put the essential foundations in place to make digital ID work for everyone.” Do not forget that what Phaedrus said… No digital ID can work for everyone – it is a deliberate false statement intended to convince you that you are not alone (you are in a herd): only those who use online access to the life resources can be covered by a digital ID, but there are about 1 billion people or more on Earth cannot read and more than 2.6 billion people have no access to online systems. So, about 3.6 billion people cannot be controlled by Digital IDs. The train has not moved yet, but the “third bell” has rung.

Continue this line of thoughts, the UK admits that “The tech community in the UK, and even less so the general public, are not yet fully aware of the implications of digital identity, smart data, and sovereign personal data that will be brought about by the forthcoming Data (Use & Access) Bill.” In translation from the official language to human English, this means that neither the industry nor the people are ready for DIPP. And this also means that “digital ID is not as eye-catching as the debates around artificial intelligence“, i.e., the chances of the ruler’s U-turn are high (since a red signal of “digital concentration camp” is visible to many). So, its propaganda continues.

A statement like this, “Your identity is what makes you, you – your personality, your looks, your beliefs and your values”signifies a fundamental lie since all researchers, scientists and the majority of people claim that identity and personality are different matters and opinions are opposite with no evident dominance. “From the microscopic world of DNA to the complex neural networks in our brains, biological systems shape every aspect of who we are… But while genetics and biology provide a blueprint, the experiences we go through… play crucial roles in moulding us. So, … the answer is complex and multifaceted, and it lies at the intersection of biology, environment, and personal experience.”.

In any case, your identity is not your personality. Your biological identity influences your personality, but personality changes regardless of your biological characteristics.

Those who insist on “Your identity is what makes you, you” want to place you in an administrative box.

Why “camp guards” are so dedicated and insistent on exactly that statement. The major reason for all these ‘dances’ around identity and personality is in the goal concealed by “camp guards” . They need to tie you, the Persona, to a digital code because this is the only thing they can control you around the clock being remote and invisible to you regardless of where you are and what you do. The part of this control is the aforementioned verification of the human creature, not Persona, which a woman had given birth to.

In globally digitalised environment, your DNA is not suitable as your identifier because it cannot inform verifiers about what you do and think. They do not care about you or your identity at the end of day; they are interested only in your actions and thoughts that might be rebellious. In the Soviet Union, which did not have AI, the denunciation was widely practiced, but it was expensive and did not scale well. The AI snooping is more effective.

Despite all the terrible notes said to the point, a “digital concentration camp” is not inevitable. In the human-centric management model, your persona is the only root for identity that is important for the society where you exist. This can also be associated with multiple interfaces to the life resources that are not needed to be linked together. For instance, it is not a business of an aviation carrier to know if you have have a sick stomach and deny your onboarding on this basis – your health is your private business. The aviation carriers must prevent or minimise the risks associated with their technological environment, including provided food. However, to eat this food or not – is your prerogative.

Thus, an identity label on a human creature is needed not to plan how much water this creature needs next year but to assess the individual loyalty to the regime. Reviewing your online activities, the rulers estimate the level of your danger to them; are you obeying their rules or daring to have your own opinion and courage to express it to others, which can undermine their authority?

A Hell Cooking Book

It was not easy to get together of the puzzle of DIPP because of its visible and invisible parts that had to be found and placed next to each other. If you do not place these parts together, your continuously see one picture and start thinking that it is real – it is an art of faking or mastery of hallucination. But if they are together, see yourself, piece by piece:

I asked MS Copilot whether the last statement above simply means that your digital identity is you. I instructed Copilot not to bother me with all political corrected speculations about “representation of you” constituting the visible part. Here is the AI return:

I believe that this simple logic used by Copilot stripped off all hallucination tricks and uncovered the core – your digital identity is you for the “camp wards”; otherwise, they are not interested in your existence.

Since a digital identifier is so crucial, lets explore further. Any DIPP assigned to an individual should have three parts: 1) the personal information about the assignee; 2) the information that can be verified; 3) the information that links the information just specified to the physical person. According to GDPR that regulates ‘personal data’, the DIPP may apply to only currently living persons, i.e. a DIPP for the died person must be eraised, which never mentions in all resources I read through. Let’s analyse how each of the mentioned parts can be realised:

• the personal information about the assignee is a set of your digital attributes – any sets of data that usually identify you – your name, address, and date of birth. Well, more accurately, all the names you ever held, all the addresses you lived at before, your place of birth, nationality and a like. Isn’t this strange? If you have the information that identifies you already, what would be a problem to insert it via an online interface in a system for verification as we do it today?
• the second part of DIPP is convoluted and confusing for regular people. This part should contain special information that is supposed to go through a verification process and can assure the verifier that this information is connected to you. Very interesting – this seems like the verifier does not believe that your name, address and date of birth are yours , i.e., connected to you. Or something different is meant here (again, and again – recall what Phaedrus had said). This is the beginning of the puzzle: what is this special information, where is it sourced from, by whom, why should we trust them, and who verifies these verifiers and authorises them? Even if this verifier is an official administrative office, all asked questions still call for answers
• the final part of the puzzle is about what you can represent as evidence (credentials) to prove that you are the person to whom the verified information of the second part belongs. Very tricky, isn’t it? Well, as known for decades to competent people, this is about authentication of an actor, which is a special security process for verification of credentials you represent. If these credentials – a password, a token, a PIN – are created by a third party, the verifier must know about this or even generated by the verifier itself. You may be requested to keep these credentials. However, if they form a part of your digital identity, it should be immutable as a whole. Nonetheless, according to real-world practice, the authentication details such as passwords, PINs, secret phrases or even fingerprints are insecure and can be stolen, faked and forged. Thus, they must be replaceable, which is not assumed.

A special role in digital identity is assigned to face recognition technologies. Existing experience collected from the use of face recognition for accessing smartphones and other devices creates a false impression that many accept this identity control. What is missed is that those men are young people who prefer simplicity and convenience to security (they have nothing to lose yet). At the same time, “many oppose facial recognition technology because it jeopardizes privacy, civil liberties, and personal security. It enables constant surveillance and raises the spectre of a dystopian future in which people feel afraid to exercise free speech.” Nevertheless, “the surveillance tech industry has quietly moved beyond face recognition”. A few companies like Veritone develop a new dynamic recognition technique on top of the static face recognition. “As with face recognition tech, Veritone Track uses AI to spot, identify, and follow people. But unlike facial recognition, it uses body size, gender, hair colour, clothing, accessories, and more.” A lot of people use it, but few know that “Google Photos…analyses photos taken together in time and detects if a person is wearing the same clothing across multiple photos, even if their face is not visible. The system also considers visual cues and other attributes to help identify individuals across multiple photos taken within a similar timeframe.”

With described capabilities, all mentioned passwords, PINs and a like are not really important for identification; they are needed to signify a request for asserting data collected about you. “The truth is that face recognition is just the most visible part of a much larger system of surveillance. When public concern about face recognition causes bans or restrictions, governments, companies, and other organisations simply circumvent that concern by deploying other technologies from a large and growing menu of options.”

Altogether, an information in DIPP may consist of multiple items, including:

1. Personal Information – name, date of birth, address, citizenship and other details
2. Unique Identifiers – national ID numbers, social security numbers, medical identity numbers, or even passport numbers
3. Authentication Credentials – passwords, PINs, secure phrase, cryptographic code, fingerprints, face picture, iris scans, or voice records

The verifiable information can also contain data that collected without you knowing about such as the IP address of the device you use to get online, its geolocation, and device-specific identifiers. If this device was given to you, e.g. by your employer as a supplement for better work-related communication, it may become your phisycal tag used for the DIPP.

Though all enumerated items might have at least a bit of sense for identification, the behavioral data collected on you – the browsing history, your typing patterns, most frequently used vocabulary, personal greetings and signatures, writing tone and completion patterns, downloads, social groups, posts, publications, comments, etc. – have very little to do with identification. All of them characterise your absolutely private current personality. This is from the sphere of a “secret service”, i.e. for the monitoring your social life. What is this for? Guess from three times…

If you agree to all these, you do not need to step over the Hell’s threshold – you are in the Hell already.

However, you still can step off, and the “camp wards” build another trap for you; they call it “digital activity”. According to AI, “Digital activity refers to actions and interactions that take place online using digital devices and technologies.” The term makes sense on its own. However, just look at some examples of digital activities to acquire the clue:

• Social media activity (likes, comments, shares) 
• Browsing History 
• Any Downloads 
• Forms signed and online tools used
• Purchase History and shopping preferences
• Photos and Video Uploaded 
• Blogs and Posts published .

On one hand, these activities are what you do; on the other hand, you are not asked to collect or record them to prove your identification, but they are a way to close match the data that can be made a part of your digital identity. That is, someone makes this collection asking no consent from you. Since we are on the watch of “camp wards”, it looks like this is their work, do you want this or not. 

Moreover, it turns out that there is a difference between an online identity and digital activity: “While online identities offer freedom of expression, digital identities demand accountability.” The two small devils are playing here:

1. From day one, freedom of expression was and is linked to accountability. Freedom of expression states that individuals have the right to express their minds, but they also bear responsibility for the consequences of their speech. An expression of certain anti-human ideas entails punishments.

2. It is not regulated, and we are not told when “online identities” become “digital identities”; people online cannot distinguish between them. That is, when you set your user name on Twitter or Facebook, you may use your pseudonym or even stolen names of famous people, but at one moment your actions suddenly become your digital identity that you are accountable for.

Does DIPP “pull our legs”? The policing nature of “digital identities” are masked by “online identities” – the latter encourage “freedom of expression” maing it easier to catch you on disagreements with “camp wards”. Why they curious of your “purchase history”? Do they want to supply you in line with your choices or to “limit and control”regulate” your supplements as they wish to dictate you certain actions similarly to how dogs are trained? Isn’t this “purchase history” your personal and even private area? Or whose business is your browsing history or your personal preferences in social media (excluding underage children)? Such things may be monitored by police if you are a criminal and a judge has signed a tracking order. , but nor as a norm or regular life. Overall, does this mean that the entire DIPP system is a total policing cage created for “your safety”?  Is this the safety that allows knifing little girls and calling the related indignant protests misinformation?

While you are assumed to be sold on that the DIPP “enables you to prove who you are without presenting physical documents” (what a big problem solved!), there should be someone who, as we have learnt, when checking your “digital identity, must have a way to know that it is genuine and that it belongs to you”.  At the same time, the genuineness of the DIPP is not in your control because all data you are asked to provide (name, PIN, etc.) can be bogus. In my guess to satisfy the “way to know” may be when the DIPP is physically connected to you, i.e., it should become an irrevocable part of your body. Actually, this is not news; in Nazi concentration camps prisoners were marked by tattoo numbers – this is the widely known historical fact.

Finally, to help “camp wards”, a special “Trust Framework” of guidelines has been proposed for DIPP verification. The documentation I was able to find in this regard includes many things (even the OAuth2.x technology code for implementation) but the solution for linking it to the physical person… Nevertheless, we are supposed to believe that the Trust Framework is legitimate: “The current version of the trust framework has been published following extensive feedback and testing. It has been developed in an open and iterative way, with input from over 250 organisations across civil society, industry, standards bodies, regulators and academia”. I beg your pardon – if you are not a moron, it is not secret to you that as of the end of 2024, there were over 5.6 million active companies only in the UK. If the number of competent (understanding a value of identity) companies is one-tenth as much as this amount of businesses, the number of contributors in this framework is only 0.1%, which cannot pretend to be an “extensive feedback and testing”.  In other words, the Trust Framework was created by a non-representative excerpt of possibly competitive organisations. This raises a lot of quandaries and concerns about the consistency and acceptability of the Trust Framework.

The Inferno Exit

Unfortunately, an exit does not guarantee a salvation, but it feeds some hopes. The part of digital identity which an individual does not control is the digital footprint – a special piece of information that appears on the network every time a person interacts with others online, browses Web or voluntarily posts anything online. So, there are two options available to everyone: a) minimise your digital footprint, and b) make your online activities less traceable. While a) is practically impossible, the option b) is well manageable.

 As I’ve described, the “gray area” of the digital identity is its second part that is used for verification and relates to your digital activities. It looks like the major parts of it include the content of your texts and images online and the used IP address.

The known and reliable protection for your communications and Internet browsing in a family of VPNs (virtual private networks). It encrypts all exchanged data and personal information, making it very difficult for external observers to see your content and IP address, i.e., to trace your activities or activities performed under your name (there are no ways to make sure that it was you who acted). It is so good that even modern Russian hackers can’t take over it when the Russian government blocks online connectivity for its people.

However, to use a VPN, it is necessary to log into your VPN account, and this event is visible to the observers. “If you’re logged in to Google and use the search function while connected to a VPN server, Google can still access your search history. The ISP won’t be able to see what you search for, but your search engine will.” Therefore, if Google contributes to your digital identity, your search history will be reported. You now can make the conclusion about what to do to avoid this happening.

Also, a VPN cannot provide complete digital anonymity for you. “No online cybersecurity tool can do that because of how interconnected the online space is”. Remaining completely anonymous online is impossible, especially if you use your name, email address, etc., to sign up for different accounts. On social media, all that you post there – comments, reactions, images – are linked to your social media accounts accessible to the related platforms. If you had not anonymised your accounts, you can be exposed regardless of the settings in your privacy selection for the account. For example, if you post pictures from your birthday, your even anonymised account will be linked to your face and people around you, which will help to identify you. Think more before announcing your personal information online in any way – you are watched.

We all need to act immediately because illegal collections of our information have started already. This is not a fantasy – the Australian government publicly announced its plans to discontinue support for the majority of encryption algorithms in the country by 2030, while the UK and even France’s ministers tried to solicit a backdoor into the security used by Apple for its customers.

June 2025