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

[Geoffrey Goodell <goodell@oxonia.net>]

Dear Carlo

You're certainly right that this issue is not really about pandemics: It is
about the government subjecting citizens (and visitors) to compliance with
procedures that put their personal privacy at risk.

Concerning the mobile apps: You're also right that many people use smartphones
and that smartphones give rise to all sorts of negative externalities.  But
some of us (including yours truly) choose not to use mobile phones at all.  The
fact is that at least some of us (a privileged few, perhaps) still have a
choice.  It is not appropriate for government to use this moment to take that
choice away, nor is it appropriate to argue that because 99% (your number, not
mine) of the population is already being robbed of their privacy by horrible
businesses, it is acceptable to assume that no one's privacy is worth anything.

Concerning the scanning devices: I reject the idea that because something is
illegal it will not be done.  That is false.  Illegal things are done, and they
will continue to be done.  Devices will be compromised by attackers.  Telling
me that I should give my data to an electronic device because it would be
illegal for the electronic device to record it is like telling me that it is
safe to walk in dark alleys at night because assault is illegal.

Even if we assume that everyone obeys the law and that governments are not
engaging in some explicit plan to eventually start recording data collected by
scanning the documents of ordinary persons engaging in routine activities, the
act of normalising such scanning is problematic.  Future government leaders
might find reason to allow data collected in this way to be recorded, perhaps
silently, and it is only a matter of time before police start asking for data
collected in this way, or before platform operators start requiring the ability
to analyse data as a condition of providing service at low cost.

Best wishes --

Geoff

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 at 12:38:48AM +0100, carlo von lynX wrote:
> 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:
#  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: