Digital identity: the last refuge of the scoundrels

Apparently, after the release of our program, which dismantled the many hoaxes spread on the net mainly by our former friends, the last refuge of such scoundrels (because this is: filthy, despicable, but fortunately irrelevant rogue) has become the theme of digital identity.

What is it about?

I'll tell you briefly.

My colleagues are variously accused, in an ethyl-conspiratorial delirium, of sharing the famous "agenda" (the pact to control our lives written in the blood of a virgin on a black goat parchment and sealed in the presence of Satan by the five leaders of the demoplutomassonic pentacle), because, by endorsing the infamous Chinese-style social credit system, we would advocate the indiscriminate adoption of pervasive and repressive control tools on the existence of each and every one of you. Now, I remembered that the friends of the Chinese were others , and I also remembered that we had taken some good shovelfuls of dung in the face from the media for opposing the green pass , but the filthy and despicable scoundrels are fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurbe, they know it luuuuuuuuuuuuuuunga, and they found a proof, overwhelming proof, that nails us to our heinous responsibilities: the fact that we would like to "put digital identity in the Constitution".

Now: it takes little to prove that someone here is stupid: either us, or the scoundrels.

It seems completely evident to me, and the benevolent attention that the free media and the independent judiciary give us testifies, that to Power as they imagine it (but also to Power as it actually manifests itself and as I suggested you study it) we are exactly welcome, or am I wrong?

#hastatoSalvini (as before #hastatoBorghi: I am a little less Henry de Cusances and a little more Võ Nguyên Giáp , or at least I would like to be inspired by this model, and then I have an excellent lawyer, and in general I do not threaten: lawsuit, and maybe for this reason #hastatoBagnai are much less frequent …), #hastatoSalvini, I said, is the alpha and omega of their story of the facts: is it raining? It was Salvini. Is the drought coming? It was Salvini. Are cities not safe? It was Salvini. Is Inflation Attacking Wages? It was Salvini.

But have you noticed or not, that the target of the Degenerate Power (PD) is us?

Because if you didn't notice, you'd be, as it were, distracted .

If, on the other hand, you have noticed it, of this defamatory and discriminatory campaign that the PD and its ubiquitous offshoots are desperately leading towards us, but despite this you think that in a similar context, having against all the media and all the rooms of power, we we would advocate the adoption of digital control tools for society and therefore political dissent, here: if this were the case, we would be faced with an interesting dilemma:

  • or would we be foolish to put such an end-of-the-world weapon in the hands of our enemy, which would immediately be turned against us,
  • or it would be foolish to listen to filthy and despicable scoundrels, because maybe things are different, and perhaps even opposite, to how filthy and despicable scoundrels tell them.

Now, since we are talking about legislation, that is, of singing cards, solving this dilemma is not that difficult.

And it always comes back to the same point: while the pandemic punctures woke up only in 2021 (because for most of them before the pandemic things were not too bad, and 2020 was even a fish sauce: at home with the salary paid, what else?), maybe we were thinking about certain critical issues that the "digital revolution" presented before, and we were trying to tackle them not with the colander (or the tinfoil hat) on our head, but with legislative instruments .

Digital control over our lives exists, and is exercised in such widespread and subtle forms that practically all of you, before the greenpass, lived with it peacefully, so much so that you took very lightly my repeated appeals to avoid at least the most naïve forms of self-violation of your privacy, those you practiced while talking on social networks. Why are we resigned to this? Simple: because the objective convenience offered by the many digital services (from ATMs downwards) goes beyond the subjective inconvenience of studying to understand how to prevent our lives from being tracked and value extracted from our data, and used to condition our own choices, without our knowledge. So all of you, all of us, who do not even take the time to refuse cookies on the sites we browse, or to delete them from the cache of our PC, or more simply to change our passwords regularly, have accepted by facta conclusentia to be exposed. to continuous violations of our identity, of our person, who today is also and above all a digital person, a node of relationships (commercial, affective, professional) intermediated by the network.

Luddism is not an alternative.

Of course, it can be hygienic to spend a weekend disconnected from the network, especially for those who, not counting a stone, can afford it (for those who, like me, would find hundreds of messages to manage on their return, it is a little less so). Who can be glad it is, but the fact is, this is our world. It is true that rejecting the world is a noble and recurring theme in our culture. In a few days I will go to where one of the most famous exponents of this cultural trend rests (and also one of the most famous symbols of its failure, because you can reject the world as much as you want, but when a government crisis lasts two years, maybe the world of your refusal cares and comes to look for you). In more recent times, si parva licet , hippies went to India : it was their way of rejecting their world (which, come to think of it, in the end was much less disgusting than ours, right?). So: viva the contemptus mundi , which, like its dialectically coincident opposite, that is, cosmopolitanism, is a good thing for those who can afford it.

But not everyone can: and here you finish, and we begin.

The 2016 AC constitutional law proposal by Hon. Morelli and others titled "Amendment to article 22 of the Constitution, regarding the protection of the right to identity, including digital, of the person " and presented to the Chamber on 24 July 2019 (therefore before the yellow-green government crisis) consists of a single article:

I remember that art. 22 says that: " No one can be deprived, for political reasons, of legal capacity, citizenship, name. " It seems to me sufficiently clear what the Camera colleagues (Morelli, Molinari, etc.) intended to pursue with this addition: exactly to avoid that a person's digital identity could be violated for political reasons. That is, in essence, the exact opposite of what the filthy and despicable scoundrels attribute to us. Just read the introductory report ( you can find it in the pdf ):

To me the filthy and valuable scoundrels seem really stupid: blinded by the blood that injects their eyes, they do not understand that our proposal intends to place the digital "person" under the highest protection provided by our legal system, intends to give constitutional importance to cases such as digital identity theft, but also digital exclusion (i.e. the impossibility for some segments of the population to access certain socially useful infrastructures), a fact addressed in other respects by the Siri bill on the current account relationship . Among other things, all these proposals have been in plain sight on the Lega website for two years (I made them put them there), and are deposited in Parliament. Why wake up now? And why, if Big Brother is perceived as a problem, don't first do a cultural battle to raise citizen awareness, as it is doing for example to / symmetries:

in not crowded company?

In short, the filthy and despicable scoundrels do not understand, or perhaps they do not want to understand. For me it matters little: I do not prosecute intentions and I have explained to you very well why, since the time of the insistent and petulant question " But was Prodi in good faith? "

To the filthy and despicable scoundrels, to the pure and hard-hitting savants, to the new Cathars barricaded in their virtual Béziers, I affectionately dedicate the words of the good Arnaldo. The voters will do the dirty work, they will slaughter you for the simple fact that they don't know who you are, since they have real lives and real problems.

A warm greeting.

This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL on Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:45:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.