theguardian.com
‘First there’s the gruelling task of trying to charge my laptop’: a day in the life of a university lecturer in Gaza
As the war in Gaza approaches its fourth year, the Guardian follows five ordinary Palestinians as they go about their lives. Each tells the story of their day, revealing the terrible toll of the confl...
![There is no basis in law or reason for us to conclude that one may adversely possess the identity of another person. The Supreme Court has held that “[a]n individual’s identity is more than just his name or Social Security number.” Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 450 (2013). A person’s identity is a part of, not separate from, their personhood. And no matter how long one uses another person’s name, they simply do not become the other person. The identities that Primrose and his wife assumed belonged to infants who were not long for this world. That the infants’ lives were short does not erase their existence or their importance. And no matter what Primrose and his wife did with the infants’ identities, those identities still belonged to the infants who were born on the dates and received the names that were recorded in their birth certificates. It is not at all clear that the infants, their parents, or family were not “harmed” by Primrose’s actions. And Primrose’s contention that he is the one “who had done the work” to establish an identity under the Bobby Edward Fort name by living a life under that name for 30 years is beside the point.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreie7gd3l6lw45p6qnrralrfwokxo57jmi6awud2l7c76tasiipcbae)
