Green Pass: the silent discussion.
One of the best tools that the mainstream press has to silence a discussion is to create a discussion where you are NOT discussing, in order to prevent a discussion where you are discussing.
I don't know if you have noticed it, but the "no green passes" make a great controversy against the green pass, but they never discuss it in an analytical and rational way. This is interesting, because in the end they just accuse the green pass of doing this and that, but they do it simply by shouting the things they "think", where they "think" is a way of saying that they have read things about Facebook.
Then come the philosophers like Cacciari who keep saying they want to open a debate, only they HAVE never opened a debate so far.
The reader of any generalist press, at this point, has the feeling that the theme of the green pass is being explored in a profound, systematic, critical and plural way.
It's actually NOT being analyzed, at all.
That is, the simulacrum of a debate exists, the simulacrum of a criticism exists, the simulacrum of an analysis exists, but debate, criticism, analysis do not exist at all.
Let's try starting somewhere.
First, what is the "green pass"? We will hardly be able to deal with the thing without telling ourselves what the thing is.
Technologically it is only the updating of an existing technology: for example, the carabinieri stop you, ask for a license, make a call to some central station and check that it is valid.
If the licenses were done the same way, they would be on the phone, they would read the QCODE, the device would call an API somewhere, and say if the license is valid and how many points it has.
In itself, therefore, we are talking about the digital and telematic application of something that already existed.
The effects of the change, therefore, are not to be sought in the qualities of the system (which are analogous to systems that have existed for decades), but perhaps they are to be sought in other characteristics:
- it is inexpensive = it did not cost as much as a manual control system, and it also costs less in opex terms.
- it's immediate = no need to call someone, dictate data, etc. Ping, and the answer comes: you are vaccinated.
- it is implemented on software: in case of defects, solving the problem is easier.
This certainly makes the system more pervasive: however, we remind you that by law we are required (in Europe) to have some documents with us, ranging from identity cards to driving licenses. Penalty sanctions or identification in the barracks.
So it is not even pervasiveness that causes the "need for debate".
However, there is one factor that we are not considering. That is, the fact that a data that we consider private, or not capable of becoming a document, has become a document that can be requested.
The choice of data to always carry with you, and certified by the state, is a delicate choice. For instance:
On this patenre it says BOTH that the lady is a veteran, whether she is an organ donor, or that she weighs 125 pounds.
Only the "donor" clause appears on the identity card:
Now, this obviously enables a number of checks: the government could easily limit some things, depending on whether you are a donor, or have been in the military. In other countries the "race" is specified:
In Germany, for obvious reasons, they don't even try to specify the breed:
On the Italian identity card, for example, you can find out more
Now, as you can see if we are in Singapore, I have the possibility, as a government, to prohibit people of a certain "race" from doing certain things. Here we begin to get into the core of the "annoyance".
Let's imagine writing the religion to which you belong on the identity cards. And tomorrow, we could decide to ban Muslims from buying pork or ordering it at restaurants, not to sell them alcohol, not to own dogs.
In themselves these bans are already underway. So how could we forbid those who claim to be Christian from buying contraceptives, buying skimpy clothes, going on trips to places known for debauchery, seeing some movies, etc.
These bans, I said, are already underway: but if someone did a "faith pass", things would get complicated. Why would they get complicated? Because there are rules in place that are, in some ways, personal.
And this is more or less true for any country or system of precepts: the precepts are many, but then in detail there are very few that are followed in practice.
All current social systems are characterized by an IPER-regulation, whose bureaucratic horror is livable only because we happily cling to so many rules.
the first thing we do when we become aware of a rule is the following:
- because it exists
- how easy / cheap it is to violate it
- how big is the sanction if we are caught by the authorities.
once this is established, it is established whether the norm should always be followed, only sometimes, practically never. The history of the green pass had, for historical reasons, been declassified as "what do you do if you like".
The reason is that if we go to answer the questions:
- it exists for reasons of public good.
- it would be very economical, because the apparatus to be set up to make it effective would be enormous.
- practically nothing, because the authorities certainly cannot be everywhere, let alone build in a short time what is needed to control everything.
instead, thanks to technology, the authorities have built a pervasive, almost omnipresent system in a relatively short time.
Here is the point:
TO OBTAIN AN AUTHORITY SYSTEM IN OUR COUNTRIES, YOU DO NOT NEED NEW RULES OR NEW LAWS. IT IS ENOUGH TO APPLY ALL, I REPEAT ALL, THE REGULATIONS IN FORCE.
Like if we write religion on the identity card, and then we forbid Muslims to do the things that their religion forbids, leaving OTHERS the possibility to drink, eat pork, send their daughters to school, etc.
Or if you prefer, as if we forbid Catholics to go to some clubs, get divorced, have an abortion, buy contraceptives, dress in certain ways, etc., while leaving OTHERS the possibility to do so.
All this would be impossible today, because there is not a police state powerful enough to scrutinize the life of every citizen at all times.
But here the problems begin: the technology that enables the Green Pass is the bridge between theoretical enunciation and practical application. It is an example, it is a "proof of concept", but the point is that we now know that this is feasible.
Using the same technology it would be possible to profile practically everything, and it would be possible to use that data at any time, practically for anyone who can download an application.
This is a problem: not so much for what the green pass really is: if used well we could prevent people with certain backgrounds from attending certain places, for example.
But the problem is that similar techniques can be extended to everything, literally everything.
And then the answer will be "but this is a police regime".
The point is, it's NOT true. In the sense that the laws already exist: the law today LITERALLY regulates everything. In Italy, then, we arrive at 150,000 laws in force.
What is the difference between a corpus juris that governs EVERYTHING and a regime that implements it? It is, of course, the police apparatus that serves to ALWAYS enforce, and to ANYONE, ALL the laws.
So far, building such a police apparatus would have sparked huge protests. The green pass is not such a police apparatus, but rather a prototype. A prototype that says "hey, if we wanted to we could enforce EVERY state law".
But we know well that the laws of the state are acceptable only if they are seasoned with a very wide possibility to transgress and mediate.
For example: here in Germany, in NRW, if I have neighbors I can have ONE barbecue a week emitting smoke for ONE hour. A.
Given my neighbors, I have no particular problems. Sometimes I warn them the day before asking if it's okay. Nothing special. At most they combine with their meat to be cooked. Nothing special, they are always sausages.
But now let's suppose that the thing undergoes an "enforcement": I have a system that marks all the charcoal I buy. And if I have charcoal for an hour, he won't let me buy more: when I get to the cashier, he reads my "BBQ pass" through RFID / NFC, and doesn't authorize the purchase.
Oops.
Did you need current technology to do this? No. In reality, when I get on a train, the controller checks my pass with a scan of a barcode, sends an EAN to a number, receives OK or KO in reply via SMS: by this I mean that there are at least 25 the technologies that are needed have existed for years.
But now it's been implemented. Some citizens heard a message they read like this:
"we have the means and techniques to enforce EVERY law, 24/7, throughout the entire territory".
The citizen KNOWS that the laws are TOO MANY and suffocating. And he knows that if the entire Juris corpus were applied, it would be hell. Every German knows that the one-hour limit only serves to explain to him that he cannot do what he wants with charcoal. But now he knows someone could REALLY make it so that he NEVER does it more than an hour a week. That time he had so many friends and asked the neighbors, now he doesn't exist anymore.
In all this, however, technology has nothing to do with it anymore.
The real problem is hyper-regulation.
The pandemic required a series of laws to limit contact. Normally such laws would have been ignored, in the absence of a method to enforce them everywhere.
In today's case, the problem is not the history of the green pass: the vast majority of citizens agree on the need to take precautions.
The discomfort that arises, and there is, consists in the fact that with the same method the state could suddenly decide to enforce ANY law, and if we go and see ALL the laws, it is a senseless mass of bureaucracy worthy of the VOGONs. .
The fear of ending up in a police state, that is, is that we ALREADY HAVE a hypertrophic corpus juris, which describes a police state. The lack of an adequate police system has made us live in relative freedom.
But if ALL the laws were applied, we would rather live in a fascist dystopia.
This is the point: the green pass is a beautiful tool. But it is a prototype, the extension of which promises to enforce all laws. And if ALL the laws apply, it's a mess.
You know those strikes where a category simply promises to observe EVERY law or regulation?
Here you are.
The green pass itself does not invalidate democracy itself. And it doesn't even affect freedoms.
The problem is, if anything, that it was hyper-regulation, which has many causes, and has nothing to do with green pass technology, which undermined democracy.
The trouble is, thanks to today's technologies, EVERY law could REALLY come into effect.
And this is the sinister note that produces concern.