Re: <nettime> CfP: Critical reflections on pandemic politics:, left-wing, feminist and anti-racist critiques

[carlo von lynX <lynX@time.to.get.psyced.org>]

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: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: