To me the vaccine passport fear doesn’t make much sense too, to be honest.
As Mr. S told us – „if they wanna get you, they get you in time“ – a hundred times before they need any vaccine passport. I cannot understand the upset bout this. I have established a (hopefully) safe pgp mail contact with 3 people within 10 or 15 years. And I know dozens or even more people who know about the dangers of mailing without. Nobody cares although in fact it’s installed within 10min, no big deal. And even if one has „nothing to hide“ it would be a help for all those having to hide something because they’re fighting for human rights haunted by regimes and so on. The more would use it the harder it would become to track those who use it because they need it. Almost everybody knows that but already that little effort of solidarity seems to be too much for most. I assume because it’s „unconvenient“. But when it comes to one’s own personal sensible health data regarding one single aspect which is helpful for the whole community then alarm bells shrill. Seems not to be balanced to me. Seems not to be any kind of argument but one which is mainly concerned about disadvantages for oneself. If you want so neoliberal regime starts right there: to take care about one’s own concerns but not about those of others. Protecting my sensible data is important… Not to speak about GAFAM apps on phones of those who safe my phone number and stuff like that. Almost nobody cares about stuff like this which is really fascinating to me. Or the new European passport with fingerprints and some nice RFID and what the hell chips in it (they indeed explode if you put them into a microwave :). That’s how criminals were treated only some years ago. Now everybody has to. And the anxiety is almost null in comparison with the vaccine passport. Except for some reports from CCC or the like. But I can see no big discourse bout it. > Am 07.02.2022 um 00:38 schrieb carlo von lynX <[email protected]>: > > On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 04:25:05PM +0000, Geoffrey Goodell wrote: >> Part of what makes the 'vaccine passport' scheme so worrisome is the extent >> to >> which it makes the decision to not carry a mobile phone less tenable and more >> difficult. Speaking personally, I do not use a mobile phone, largely for the >> reasons you rightly describe. > > Just imagine that the large majority of politicians isn't able to > comprehend how *all* mobile phones can spy on *all* of us *all* the > time and how *all* of that data can amount to an ability for one or > two governments to predict and influence the moods and choices of > *all* of us. It takes too much understanding of computer technology > to become aware of how risky it is to let this happen. > > If you accept that this is the reality we are living in, then it > makes totally sense that the remaining risks are perceived as > negligible compared to the huge advantages a smartphone brings about. > > And in the end there's no escape for us either, since all the people > that we spend time with, put their smartphones on the table and have > the Facebook app pick up all the conversations we're having.* > > This is a serious issue, but it has nothing to do with the pandemics. > > *) I can provide 5+ articles on how probable it is, that Facebook's > app is indeed listening to conversations while you're not using > your phone. > >>>> (Also, the argument about counterfeit documentation has often been combined >>>> with distrust of human document verifiers to promote the use of digital >>>> identity proofing, e.g. via biometrics, thus raising even more human rights >>>> concerns along with the question of whose security we are protecting.) >>> >>> I only see such kind of promotion on covid anti-science channels. >> >> I sincerely hope you're right about that. My experience suggests otherwise. >> Admittedly this is a bit off-topic, but consider how prominent digital >> identity >> system providers tout their solutions. > > Private companies may, depending on purpose and jurisdiction, be allowed > to employ such systems for their own purposes, but I don't see how the > pandemic could possibly justify a governmental use of biometrics if an > approximate respect of the rules by the majority of the population has > been sufficient to defuse the exponential growth. Any level of totalitarian > control isn't necessary, isn't appropriate and isn't factually happening. > > In ten years time from now we'll look back at the covid craze like we look > back at the '80s "no future" paranoia that atomic warfare will put an end > to civilisation as we know it. People were serious about "no future", too. > >>> That's why it isn't considered a privacy issue, that the QR code contains >>> all >>> of your identification data, because within the architecture of the >>> solution, >>> that data never leaves the phone neither of the citizen nor of the venue. >> >> This is too much to trust without the ability to verify. To be clear, data >> subjects are not only being forced to trust that the intentions of the >> software >> developers are purely benign and that the software is free of security bugs, >> but also that the devices that read QR codes (and, depending upon >> implementation, possibly share what they read with the network) are not >> compromised. So data subjects are also trusting the intentions and security >> practices of the venue operators, their service providers, and the owners of >> the devices that read the QR codes as well. > > The problem with digitally signed documents contained in a QR code is, > you need some smart device to be able to check their validity. So the > whole architecture of having vaccination documents that aren't as easy > to falsify as those old UN paper booklets, depends on tech. > > Now put yourself into the minds of politicians. Here are the unreliable > booklets, there's a population where almost everybody possesses a smart > phone anyway. And to be precise the QR method only requires the venues > and authorities to use a smartphone. And then there is a potential > risk of identity theft by the venues and authorities who check those > QR codes. A risk which probably isn't even a tenth as dramatic as the > everyday use of Google or Facebook. > > Don't you think it's comprehensible that they would conclude that the > technological dangers in deploying a QR-based system for vaccine > documentation are to be considered negligible? That even if they were > aware that all phone operating systems are spying on us, they would > conclude that the few powers that have access to such spy data, already > have access to everything else as well? If 99% of people go to a party > venue with GSM, maybe even Google Maps on, why should it matter that > certain superpowers might be able to access the data of vaccination > checks? > > Not saying that I agree - I'm the guy who put a legislation proposal > on the web that replaces GSM with a non-traceable telephone system - > I'm just saying that the pandemic isn't making things worse. They > already have been for years. > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: _______________________ Martin Donner www.martindonner.com Urbanstr. 83 70190 Stuttgart [email protected] 0172 780 85 80
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
