My fellow petitioners,

The Digital Liberty Act was never written because I trusted governments, corporations, payment processors, or technology companies to do the right thing.

It was written because history repeatedly demonstrates that power expands when citizens lack protections.

Recent events have only reinforced that concern.

The United Kingdom has spent years facing criticism over the handling of grooming gang investigations, including findings discussed in Rupert Lowe's report and numerous public controversies surrounding institutional failures to protect vulnerable children.

Citizens watched these failures unfold and naturally asked a simple question:

If governments struggle to protect children in the physical world, why should the public automatically trust those same institutions with greater control over the digital world while stating, "we must protect children from harm."

At the same time, governments across the West continue discussing digital identification systems, online age verification, expanded surveillance powers, speech controls, and social media restrictions.

In Britain, politicians have proposed restrictions on social media access for young people while simultaneously lowering the voting age to sixteen.

Whether one agrees with those policies or not, the contradiction raises important questions.

Are sixteen-year-olds mature enough to help decide the future of a nation?

Or are they children who must be shielded from online discussion?

Citizens deserve answers before additional restrictions are imposed.

Meanwhile, the digital landscape continues to demonstrate its own vulnerabilities.

• Billions of passwords and credentials have been exposed through data breaches and infostealer collections.
• Major platforms continue suffering security incidents.
• Age-verification systems are bypassed.
• Private information is leaked.

Yet the answer repeatedly offered to the public is the same:

• Provide more information.
• Verify more identity.
• Accept more monitoring.
• Trust us.

The Digital Liberty Act exists because liberty should not depend on trust.

Rights should exist regardless of who occupies public office.

Rights should exist regardless of which political party is in power.

Rights should exist regardless of whether a corporation approves of your speech, beliefs, art, business, or opinions.

Privacy.

Due process.

Freedom of expression.

Digital property rights.

Protection from arbitrary censorship.

These are not privileges to be granted by governments or corporations.

They are rights that belong to the people.

Today, more than 200 people have signed the Digital Liberty Act.

That number is still small.

But every movement begins with citizens who decide that remaining silent is no longer enough.

Read the DLA.

Challenge it.

Criticize it.

Improve it.

Share it.

Most importantly, discuss it.

The future of digital liberty will not be secured by governments, corporations, or algorithms.

It will be secured by citizens willing to defend it.

— Jaiden Cross

Digital Liberty Act