Hmm. I’m not quite sure what you mean, but I’ll try to answer.
The issue of passports and travel is pretty cut and dried. A passport is a contract, issued by the state. The issuance is contingent, in part, upon one’s citizenship, which is yet another civil contract issued by the state.
Citizenship isn’t automatic when we’re born; our parents have to register us at the time of “live birth” with the state–much like you’d register a car. Thereof, a birth certificate is issued, much like the MCO for a newly produced car. At which point your status as a natural person is modified and you become incorporated with the state (you receive citizenship). All the parties involved, including your parents, if married (marriage license) are corporate entities, who in partnership with the state, create yet another entity, you the citizen.
To say the least, citizenship is not a right.
The implications here are stupefying. This reaches into every aspect of our lives, economy, politics and so on–and few know anything about it really … Pretty scary if you ask me.
Now think in terms of commercial travel. This is definitely not a right. You can be denied a ticket (yet another contract) for any number of reasons. Not least might be lack of a government issued ID–where perhaps an argument about discriminatory practices may have occurred long ago, similar to the one we’re having now about digital passports.
Point is, the amount of legal encumbered, we as supposed free people bare is extensive. There’s virtually nothing in society untouched. Meanwhile, our actual rights are berried so far beneath it, that we effectively don’t have any.
To put this in perspective as it concerns digital immunization passports upon our phones, we definitely do not have any rights here. To start, unless you make something with your own two hands, out of raw materials, for your own personal use, you probably don’t own it. Rather, you likely only have title to it.
Something like a smartphone would surely qualify. A) It was trafficked in commerce, produced by incorporated factories, who carry respective licenses and covenants with the state–a license is permission to do something that is otherwise illegal or a tort. B) Said product was then purchased by you, another corporate entity, with commercial instruments known as currency.
Still, to make the matter clear, the providers of these devices have you agree to innumerable terms and licenses, which effectively grant you title to your use their product. In other words, you don’t own it, it’s not yours really. Prima facia is the fact they can alter your phone or service however and whenever they like; they can exclude or cancel your account(s) in whatever way, for whatever reason they like; they can store and use your data–really it’s theirs–however they like; and they can install/update whatever software they like. Furthermore, you may not even have a ‘right to repair’ your device … and so on.
Which means if they want to force a digital passport onto your phone, and tell us all we can’t fly unless we have one, there won’t be much of a choice really. They’re legally able to do it and they’re practically able to it by nature of the technology. All because, somewhere and somehow you unwittingly, or not, agreed to it.
Air travel nor mobile service is a right.
In view of all of this, you might ask, ‘why would the airline and mobile industry willingly act as proxy-enforcers for policies of the world(s) government(s)?’ … Mighty fine question; not going to touch it though.
Concerning Purism, the question that concerns me is: what does all the mean for the Librem 5, or the like? Assuming there’s no technical hurdles, concerning the hardware or OS, to what degree could Purism be forced to comply with all this? That worries me. I don’t have a Librem 5, yet, but I want one. Furthermore, I don’t want to see what seems like a virtuous company be compromised or destroyed, because they’re attempting to prevail a ‘freedom phone.’
Interesting thoughts. I’m reminded of the old testament where the people opted for a king, to protect and provide for them, instead of God and his cruel natural laws. It would appear most of history has opted for the proverbial king as well.
I’m also reminded of the studies that conlcude most people would rather be taken care of, than have actual freedom …
One thing’s for sure though, we’re far down a particular road right now and there’s going to be some kind of reckoning.
) innocuous.