"Driver's licence for free speech"
Technical quibble: A driver's licence is (ostensibly) about having the basic technical prowess to not unduly endanger fellow users of the road. You could argue that there shouldn't be a name on it, or at least that plod wouldn't be allowed to do anything with that name unless there's been an accident that needs a name to assign the blame. Of course that isn't how it works in practice, but strictly speaking that's administrative lazyness. The justification is in having to show you can drive well enough to be allowed to drive. Yes, that's splitting hairs but the difference might turn out to be important in this discussion, so please keep it in mind. Anyhow.
So, is he doing a "thinking of the children" moral panic? 'twould be sad to see an IT professional --you'd think such a someone would know better-- go down that path. Or is he just trying to sell a corporatise-the-world "security" solution?
Personally I dislike "impossible" counter-arguments; we've seen time and again that very few things turn out to be flat-out impossible, though with enough care they'll turn out intractable for the foreseeable future for a fair application to all, ie there will be holes, it won't be perfect, it won't work very well. But something can always be made to work given a sufficiently small scale (which might not be all that small: China being a point in case) and for some that is enough argument to ignore "impossible" objections.
To me the salient point is that pinning down everyone, everywhere, everywhen, with that one state-issued "identity" tag, isn't just a bad idea, unworkable, or any such objection. It is something we should not desire. In fact it is something we cannot have without making a mockery of our freedoms.
In this respect ardent proposers of schemes like this are, quite simply and just to return the favour of unduly labeling people, haters of freedom. And then it suddenly becomes really interesting to see which politicians buy into, say, this guy's arguments.