Okay I’ve said this so many times but (open source) code is speech and thus protected by free speech laws. Also idk if anyone’s noticed but it’s pretty obvious ID verification is for mass surveillance and obbo purposes. Now why would this apply to software that we already know doesn’t spy on you? Until now, proprietary software and big tech platforms already spied on you, but it could - to an extent be pseudonymised. This isn’t about spying on people, they already do that, it’s about removing pseudonymisation - instead of your data being stored under: User #2044820 it’ll be your full govt name and address leaving no room for doubt or plausible deniability.
It is by every metric, useless to provide ID verification for software that collects no data, at best it would just give them a better idea of the demographic. Also it’s literally open source, the GPL prohibits disallowing people from forking/editing it and it prohibits restrictions on the way in which it can be edited, which is legally binding.
The UK has been doing that since '01 but only under the so-called “terrorism” act passed by notorious terrorist war criminal and Larry Ellison’s bestie, Tony Blair who’s currently so far inside him, his rectum’s bleeding. Essentially the police can arrest you under no reasonable grounds, keep you detained indefinitely and you lose your right to private legal counsel (you’re not allowed to speak to your solicitor/lawyer in private) and your right to silence, if you refuse to answer ANY questions you’ll automatically be charged with TERRORISM and be branded a terrorist from then on, and you legally have to unlock any personal devices on your person under the exact same threat, refusal will be met with a terrorism charge.
It’s literally almost exclusively used in a politically motivated manner and against political dissidents mostly at border checks. It was used against Palestine Action protesters before their ban was overturned by the High Court and Worker’s Party leader George Galloway and his wife when he was arrested by armed counter-terror police at Gatwick sending them into exile (love him or hate him or whatever you think of him, doesn’t matter really - he’s definitely got some “unique” views - that’s obviously a disgusting, Orwellian and draconian form of political persecution to say the least)
The police don’t need any good reason and more often than not the order comes directly from the govt. The only reason it doesn’t violate the Human Rights Act or European Convention on Human Rights is because it invokes the very vague “national security” exemption which is almost always “this is a matter of national security, trust me bro” and when they get asked for the justification of WHY it’s so-called national security related they always say they can’t disclose the justification because that’s very conveniently to do with “national security” as well.