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

[Geoffrey Goodell <goodell@oxonia.net>]

Dear Carlo

Thank you very much for your thoughtful exploration --

I think many of the parties on both sides of this debate are missing the bigger
picture.

For the sake of argument, suppose that we are agnostic about:

(a) whether vaccinations should be a condition of entry to popular venues,

(b) whether the management of popular private venues can demand documents from
their patrons and deny admission to individuals on the basis of their
vaccination status, and

(c) whether the management of popular private venues can be held liable for
failing to enforce rules of behaviour or entry on the basis of their
vaccination status.

Even in this case, we should still be concerned with the 'vaccine passport'
schemes that have been established in Europe and elsewhere in the world.  The
reason is not about whether government should interfere with private commerce
or gatherings, nor about whether private venues have a right to discriminate
against certain persons.  Although those are valid concerns, they can be
weighed against the interests of public health.

The problem, which in my view is the elephant in the room, is about the extent
to which governments and other actors can use the 'vaccine passport' systems to
track the habits, movements, and circumstances of individual persons as they
engage in routine activities.

Consider:

(1) Many 'vaccine passport' schemes encourage, or even require, individuals to
carry with them mobile devices with a range of identification information
on-board, such as mobile phone numbers, IMEI, secure enclave keys, and so on,
and to install certain software on those devices.  Even if we were to assume
that the software would strictly conform to free software guidelines and be
subject to rigorous security auditing, a plethora of metadata (think location,
IP address, and so on) would nonetheless be available to such applications and
the network services that they use.  To assume that such metadata would not be
accessible to the platform operators, or to the police, or to criminal
organisations would be a profound miscalculation.  Although many governments
provide a way for people to use their 'vaccine passport' schemes without mobile
devices, such paths are often cumbersome and de facto discouraged.

(2) It is still possible to avoid mobile devices (thankfully), but even the
paper forms have are problematic, following from the dubious but
widely-accepted assertion that the preponderance of counterfeit documentation
justifies online verification.  Specifically, they often include barcodes or QR
codes that reference a specific database entry that the issuer had associated
with the documented person.  This means that the online verification service
knows who is using the 'vaccine passport' scheme, both the data subject and the
venue performing the check (the relying party).  As a result, the online
verification service has access to time and location information about every
check that is performed, and that information can be used to track the movement
and behaviour of the data subject from venue to venue over time.  By and large,
the online verification services are not issuing barcodes or QR codes via blind
signature schemes or zero-knowledge proofs to allow data subjects to isolate
their identities from the verification step, nor are they circulating databases
of hash values to relying parties so that the checking could be done without
phoning home.  (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.)

(3) Even if we assume that the governments issuing 'vaccine passports' are
truly benign, the data subject is expected to present the same barcode every
time, meaning that the venues doing the scanning can pool their knowledge of
the barcodes they have seen to build profiles of data subjects.  We could
imagine working around this by issuing a series of cryptographically unrelated
one-time keys to scan, although by and large, this has not been done.

So we're in a tough spot.  Too many people use apps that leak metadata that
compromise their privacy, and even with the paper system, electronic
verification exposes individuals to privacy risks.

We have optimised the 'vaccine passport' systems to make individual persons
accountable.  As a result, the public has lost essential freedom.

Best wishes --

Geoff

On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 at 02:17:11AM +0100, carlo von lynX wrote:
> No-one has replied to this one, so I'll carefully try to do so.
> After all it happens to be a reply to a post of mine.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 01:25:55PM +0100, Luca Barbeni wrote:
> > Hi to everyone,
> > I don't write frequently on the list but I'm pretty tired of the
> > association of provax with science vs novax against science.
> > I'm definitively against the vaccine mandate and strongly against the pass.
> > In Italy I know people with the pass that were positive but because
> > they had the pass
> > they took an airplane... and you tell me the pass is a solution?
> 
> In fact Italian airports are among the ones doing a not so bad
> job. At least they still check for body temperature which I
> haven't seen happening in many other places.
> 
> Recently in various airports I have been asked to prompt my
> vaccination QR code or the printed lines below it, but never
> has anyone actually checked whether the QR code actually comes
> with any valid digital signature, making the whole "green pass"
> infrastructure apparently pointless.
> 
> As I asked the employee why she would not use the "CoronaCheck
> Scanner" app (which is even available from F-Droid, like all
> governmental apps should) to ensure my colour-printed sheet
> of paper is actually legit (and not signed by a rogue pharmacy
> for example, or entirely made up), she just said the airways
> aren't getting paid to do governmental jobs.
> 
> So what's the deal with governments not being very precise and
> serious about checking the rules they make? Well, I presume it
> has to do with epidemiology: It is not important to intercept
> *every* single case and to be super strict with everyone as
> long as the large majority of population respects the rules
> and thus slows down the spread of the epidemics.
> 
> And apparently that strategy has worked out. We are about to
> get out of the covid tunnel.
> 
> > I don't believe these measures because I trust science,
> > and pharmaceutical science until before the pandemic was based on
> > cautionary principle
> > that has been thrown in the bin.
> 
> Strangely however, your conclusion doesn't sound very scientific,
> it sounds like you trust your own understanding of science better
> than what the scientific consensus would say - but the point in
> being science-based is to not follow a single person's opinion
> or even scientific evaluation, but rather to seek the consensus.
> 
> > If the vaccine is working so well why do we still have 400 dead by
> > day in Italy?
> 
> If people weren't vaccinated, then either Italy would still be in
> a real lockdown, or the numbers of people dying would be some
> hundredfold higher - simply because the hospitals wouldn't keep up.
> The vaccine, the masks, the distancing have tamed the exponential
> growth of the malady. The illness still kills people, but a lot
> less than it could have killed, had we been less rational.
> 
> > I agree the vaccine for elderly but a mandate for everyone doesn't
> > make any sense
> > when the average age of death is 82.
> 
> That average is so high *because* the hospitals are keeping up.
> We have seen in many countries with unreasonable political
> leadership how hospitals got overrun with the consequence of
> getting a spike in young deaths which could have been avoided
> if they hadn't all gotten infected *at the same time* and in
> such high numbers.
> 
> By vaccinating all of the population, young people do not crowd the
> hospitals, allowing hospitals to do their best for the elderly
> which are still at risk of dying.
> 
> > and BTW people are dying because badly cured,
> > in Italy we're still relying on a protocol based on "paracetamol and
> > watchful waiting"
> > that's only killing people
> > and that's what science says.
> 
> I don't know where you have your science from, but the
> scientific consensus that I have been following speaks
> differently.
> 
> > That's really not the case, we still have "problems" because Omicron
> > doesn't care at all about the vaccine
> 
> That is incorrect.
> 
> > and by the way all my family isn't vaccinated, more than 20 people,
> > everyone got it in January and it was less severe that a flu, also
> > my parents who are over 70 and not vaccinated.
> 
> Glad you like Russian roulette, but your behaviour has nothing to do
> with science.
> 
> > Young people is dying less not for the vaccine but because the virus
> > is milder...
> 
> But that is still a guess, not a scientific certainty. So your
> entire family has been at risk for over a year of getting the
> nastier variants of the virus? You call that reasonable? Also,
> since it is scientifically clear that there is nothing wrong
> with the vaccine, what was the point in taking a risk? Maybe
> you aren't actually behaving in a scientifically solid way by
> supporting some irrational doubts about the vaccines?
> 
> > and btw you'll never know if vaccinated people got it milder because
> > of the vaccine or not becasue there's no control group...
> 
> Then why are the hospitals mostly crowded by non-vaccinated
> persons, some of them pretty young? Where do you get your
> facts and science from?
> 
> > In my humble experience I only know people who got Covid without any problem
> > while I know people who got severe problems from the vaccine, but
> > perhaps I'm unfortunate...
> 
> Yes, indeed, because you are confusing science with anecdotical
> observations. There are young unvaccinated people occupying
> hospital beds needlessly, and there are people who experience
> side effects of the vaccine because they are afraid of it -
> not because any of those effects are caused by the vaccine
> itself. Here's the Harvard study in that regard:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jan/18/nocebo-effect-two-thirds-of-covid-jab-reactions-not-caused-by-vaccine-study-suggests 
> https://hms.harvard.edu/news/power-placebo 
> 
> 2/3 of vaccination side effects only exist in the mind!
> Considering that many people experience real pains in their
> arms after getting a jab, it is surreal that patients have
> been reporting more paranoid pains than real ones. This is
> illustrating once more how humans are unable to think 
> rationally on these matters.
> 
> If you are an informed science-oriented person, did your
> information channels let you know about this new scientific
> fact? Maybe they didn't because they are moderated with the
> habit of censoring any science that doesn't fit the agenda
> of the moderator? Try posting these links in your favourite
> covid chatroom and see if they get removed...
> 
> > BTW I'm vaccinated because unless I couldn't work.
> 
> Some governmental measures are designed to save lives.
> 
> > so please stop to make an equation between vaccine and science that
> > doesn't make any sense.
> > Do you want to have a vaccine, please do it
> > but don't blame the no vax
> > rather the state that should build new hospital, more beds, raise
> > the paycheck to nurses
> > rather giving billions to pharmaceutical companies
> 
> You're not being scientific. Vaccination is the only realistic
> and scientific way to address this virus - medicines are only
> about to enter the market *now* and there is no number of
> hospitals that would be able to manage an exponentially
> growing epidemic going through the roof.
> 
> Always in favour of raising nurses' paychecks and de-privatising
> hospitals, but it would not address the covid emergency.
> 
> > This war between vax and novax has been created in order to divide us,
> > the longtime classic "divide et impera"...
> 
> No. Politicians had hoped that everybody would be rational and
> acting reasonable. Instead a number of people has chosen to get
> manipulated by anti-scientific political forces on the Internet,
> suggesting there could be something wrong about the only possible
> remedy against the virus. Bad luck for the politicians acting in 
> such a liberal way. In the meantime science has found out that a 
> strong mandate would have worked better, psychologically:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/11/vaccine-hesitancy-psychology-regret/
> 
>     "Anticipated regret sheds light on why vaccine-hesitant people seem more comfortable taking their chances with the virus rather than getting the shot, a decision that is not rational given the relative likelihood of experiencing severe effects of covid-19 vs. severe vaccine side effects. [???] When people don???t feel the weight of making their own choice, they aren???t as tormented by the anticipated negative outcomes of their decision. Mandates externalize responsibility for getting vaccinated ??? shifting it from the self to others ??? making it easier to go forward with getting a shot."
> 
> I know this scientific evidence is a hard hit to anyone
> who believes in individual freedom ideologies. The problem
> in those ideologies is that Cartesian individual rationality
> has been proven wrong long time ago, which to me makes it
> likely that individual freedoms are also psychosocially 
> wrong. It is wrong to ask an individual whether they agree
> on giving away their data to a behemoth (GDPR) just as it 
> is wrong to expect an individual to grasp the long-term 
> consequences and therefore stop smoking, eating sugars etc.
> It's even wronger to ask individuals to change their habits
> to save the planet, because by doing so you are denying the
> science we have about human psychology! I wished we could go
> that way, but science has slapped these ideologic approaches
> in our face. We need to seek collective freedoms and
> collective rationality. The latter is what should
> distinguish us from the Chinese approach.
> 
> 
> P.S. I try to base everything I say on scientific consensus
> and evidence. If you plan to reply to this mail, please do 
> not just throw science-rejecting opinions at me, but rather
> provide solid evidence and facts that prove me wrong.
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> #  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: