I do agree that conceptually the government shouldn’t force you to buy things from private companies to exercise your rights.
However, you already have to buy a passport (often for a lot of money) in most countries, so pragmatically, I don’t know that it’s a hugely different thing to ask. However, there’s a big difference for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
Immigration tends to stretch human rights though. It costs >10k gbp in visa fees for a British citizen to return to the UK with a non-UK spouse from arrival to settlement. You also need to be earning a fair bit of money, and not have the British partner as a stay at home spouse. I would say that frustrates article 8 ECHR, but the government disagrees.
There are countless examples of similar issues re international travel and immigration. Smartphone ownership is simply one of many.
A paper passport can be valid for 10 years (maybe more, I'm not sure). It can be stashed in a safe. It can be left alone for several years and be picked up just before leaving for the airport.
A smartphone will not satisfy any of these properties.
If you are convicted of hacking in Australia, you may be subject to a lifetime order that prevents you from owning a smartphone. However, once your parole is done, you do have freedom of travel.
Ownership of a device simply is not a guarantee you can rest on - even before you get to those who may not be able to use them.
I completely agree. There are a variety of reasons why a person might be digitally excluded.
Governments need to make sure that people can access the services that they’re entitled to through a wide variety of channels, including physically visiting an office if necessary.
Though I will say, at a practical level, you will find that it’s increasingly difficult for people with criminal records to travel internationally (due to entry requirements).
"They're entitled to" or "Have a right to" seem more precise than "eligible". At least in my country, I think everyone (citizens) has the right to a passport. It's not something you need to be chosen for as "eligible" would imply.
My reasoning is that eligibility is a prerequisite for entitlement. I believe eligible is defined as meeting some criteria for, not necessarily being chosen though that could be a criteria. I agree they have a right to, however entitlement implies to me that the person has invested some time and resources in asserting their right. Whereas eligible means only that the right to something exists, if it were to be asserted.
The way I see it "entitle" = "in title". People in their title as citizens have a right (often from birth and unalienable) to certain things such as passports.
"Eligible" means you're able to be elected, but you must still be elected. Different from a passport, you may be eligible to a visa, and at some point an officer is likely going to interview you and decide whether to give you one.
People are entitled to a passport but only eligible to a visa. You can assert what you're entitled to, but not what you're eligible to.
> entitlement implies to me that the person has invested some time and resources in asserting their right
That's only when your title was earned, which not all are; some are born into them.
> I believe eligible is defined as meeting some criteria for, not necessarily being chosen though that could be a criteria.
The confusion may have started when decisions became more automated into "criteria" to be checked for by bureaucrats that no longer have the deciding power they once had (and later further automated by software), but "chosen" is in the latin root of the word. For example, "chosen" in Spanish is "elegido", "choosable" would be "elegible". "Eligible" = "electable" = "choosable". They're all basically synonyms.
>> entitlement implies to me that the person has invested some time and resources in asserting their right
Something else about what you said here, for titles that are earned (e.g. naturalized citizens), you don't invest time and resources to assert your right. You invest time and resources to earn the title. When you've earned the title, you've earned the rights that come with it. Having then those rights, you can then assert them. You don't need to expend anything to assert. You just claim them, since they're already your own. For example, if someone says you need to expend time and resources to assert your right to vote when you're already a citizen, that's wrong. Having expended time and resources to become a citizen (or having been born a citizen), it's already your right to vote. You're entitled to a vote.
However, you already have to buy a passport (often for a lot of money) in most countries, so pragmatically, I don’t know that it’s a hugely different thing to ask. However, there’s a big difference for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
Immigration tends to stretch human rights though. It costs >10k gbp in visa fees for a British citizen to return to the UK with a non-UK spouse from arrival to settlement. You also need to be earning a fair bit of money, and not have the British partner as a stay at home spouse. I would say that frustrates article 8 ECHR, but the government disagrees.
There are countless examples of similar issues re international travel and immigration. Smartphone ownership is simply one of many.