Your Identity Is Becoming the Price of Entry
The web is changing fast. Governments are pushing identity checks deeper into everyday use. Platforms are complying, often aggressively.
What used to be anonymous or pseudonymous now sits behind selfies, passports, and face scans. It is framed as safety. In practice, it is an identity checkpoint layered onto the open internet.
The Rule That Still Protects You
Only give what is required. Nothing more.
Offline, this rule is obvious.
- You do not show a passport to buy lunch.
- You show I.D. only when the law requires it.
Online, that logic breaks down.
- Sites ask for full legal names.
- Facial images.
- Copies of government I.D.
- All for basic access.
Each extra field increases exposure.
Each upload widens the blast radius of the next breach.
Verification should confirm eligibility, not harvest identity.
Why Verification Is Everywhere Now
Three forces are driving this shift:
Regulation
Laws like the UK Online Safety Act push platforms toward age and identity checks.
Platform panic
Major services are redesigning onboarding fast, often over-collecting to stay safe legally.
Safety narratives
Protecting minors and reducing abuse are real goals.
The default solution has become mass identity collection.
The pattern matters. Each new rule demands more data than the last.
Where Verification Can Help
Used carefully, verification has value.
Keeps minors out of adult spaces.
Creates audit trails for legal compliance.
Raises the cost of harassment.
These benefits only hold if data is minimal, temporary, and tightly controlled.
What Users Actually Experience
The downsides are structural.
Anonymity collapse
Online life becomes fully attributable by default.
High-value breach targets
Identity databases attract serious attackers.
Built-in exclusion
Refugees, undocumented users, and privacy-conscious people get locked out.
Small-site damage
Compliance costs shut down independent communities.
A Practical User Checklist
Age-restricted content
- Typical ask: Photo I.D., selfie, payment method
- Give: Proof of age only. Never full documents.
Social networks
- Typical ask: Full name, phone, photo I.D.
- Give: Only what is strictly required. Skip optional fields.
Messaging apps
- Typical ask: Phone number, selfie
- Give: Phone number only if unavoidable. Decline biometrics.
Everyday purchases
- Typical ask: Email
- Give: Email only.
- If I.D. is required, walk away.
Simple rule:
If a company cannot clearly explain why it needs something, it does not deserve it.
Addendum: “Required” Often Means “Preferred”
Many sites claim identity checks are mandatory.
Often, they are not.
- “Compliance” is frequently a risk decision, not a legal one.
- Merchants over-collect to reduce liability.
- Optional fields are framed as required to increase data capture.
If a platform cannot cite a clear legal requirement, treat the request as discretionary.
What Privacy-Respecting Platforms Do
Do
- Collect the minimum.
- Encrypt by default.
- Delete quickly.
- Offer non-government alternatives.
- Be explicit about storage and access.
- Provide appeal paths.
Do not
- Default to full identity.
- Treat facial data as low-risk.
- Assume everyone has government I.D.
- Leave access controls vague.
Strategic Guidance for Designers and Regulators
- Define the goal clearly. Safety, fraud, and compliance require different tools.
- Layer controls. Start light. Escalate only when needed.
- Expire requirements. Old rules should not live forever.
- Involve privacy critics early. They spot exclusion risks fast.
A Reality Check on Implementation
This guidance is intentionally strict.
That does not mean it is always easy to follow.
Modern platforms increasingly rely on automated identity verification vendors. These systems are rigid by design. They often require full document scans, selfies, and biometric checks. There is usually no human review. There is rarely room for negotiation.
In many cases, refusing to provide full identity does not result in partial access.
It results in no access.
That is the trade-off.
This framework is not a promise that you can always give less data and still use the service. It is a tool for deciding when access is worth the cost.
Sometimes the answer will be yes.
Sometimes the answer should be no.
Understanding that distinction matters more than winning a form field argument you cannot actually have.
Final Thought
The internet does not need full identity to function safely. It needs proportionality.
The right stance is not “no verification ever.” It is this:
Prove what is necessary. Protect everything else.
You would not show a passport for a routine transaction. Online rules are no different. You would not show it at a counter. Do not show it online.
Privacy is not about hiding. It is about control.
