Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway55421 | Hacker News Reader

Yet scanning a QR code which uniquely identifies an individual to get into any venue is totally fine because we didn't update the source code yet and so it's not phoning home this week.

Well, if the source (of the scanner) is even legit, since the app stores provide no way to verify that anyway.

View on HN

You can choose whether or not to show a QR code, or even disclose whether you have one, and to whom.

Mass surveillance is imposed and can't be opted-out from (unless you have an invisibility device, in the case of widespread cameras).

QR codes can also be discarded, or new ones issued. Biometrics (e.g. face structure) cannot be replaced once "compromised". I use quotes for the latter, since biometrics are never secret in the first place (e.g. if we could keep our faces, fingerprints, DNA, etc. secret then they'd be useless in criminal investigations!).

Who cares about new qr code when you scan and receive the same PI every time? You can scan a new code but keep recording.

I am required to show a QR code to eat.

Can't you just show the paper with the proof of vaccination? Like I might not have a smartphone but I have the paper and ID card in my wallet.

And the paper has a QR code and the checking application makes a request to a state-run server with its data (including owner ID).

That's incorrect, the verification happens fully locally. The check app occasionally has to update trusted certificates but otherwise it runs locally. No personal data is sent to any kind of server.

Until it auto updates.

If it even matches the source as is. Play Store and App Store are non reproducible.

Do you pay cash when you go to restaurants or shopping? If you pay electronically then why do you trust the payment system? (it is not open source,reproducible and for sure your purchases contain much more data then what you imply the QR code scanner collects)

Yes. And meal tickets for most people here - so cash equivalent.

Many Germans refuse to use anything but cash for that very reason, so this isn't a very strong argument.

Yes.

It's on f-droid with reproducible builds.

Obviously there's a risk that the person scanning the QR code does shady things with it but it's rather unlikely the app itself will. It would be caught really quickly.

It depends on location, I doubt some shop or restaurant worker will bother to scan your paper and upload it to the government. QR code scanning should work without Internet I bet if you (the group that thinks it is a conspiracy not you personally) could just disassemble the Android app and see exactly what it sends and to who.

Yeah they don't bother, but that's illegal and the state is trying its best to force them to scan it.

In Germany you can also just show the Europäischer Impfausweis (official yellow booklet containing all your vaccinations) that doesn't contain any QR codes.

Not in Berlin. Only the digital version is allowed for entry to those places.

Source: https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/thema/corona/beitraege/2021/09...

...to eat at a restaurant. You can shop at a supermarket and eat at home. The thing is that yes, during the pandemic (and only then) for reasons of public health and safety, society has deemed this small violation of privacy necessary.

I can't cook when I work.

Yeah, no, being logged everywhere you go is not "small".

Oh do pipe down.

If I am in Germany, I can choose not to show a QR code if I _never go out_.

Thankfully I live in the UK with none of this nonsense _and better outcomes_.

The new German government is also anti-lockdown and presumably passport (at least moreso than Merkel). One of the first things he did was scrap Merkel's plans for a new two-week countrywide lockdown.

It's also worth pointing out that Germany DOES recognize natural immunity and allows this to serve in place of a jab. Haven't seen that reported in US news but you can find it in European papers.

One of the first things he did was scrap Merkel's plans for a new two-week countrywide lockdown.

That lockdown was not a completely unfounded suggestion though, given that both the number of infected and the number of new cases/day are twice as high as during last year's peak [1] -- and last year's peak was around Christmas, not in November.

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/#g...

The majority are unvaccinated people. It's really their own god damn fault for not getting vaccinated. At the most there should be a lockdown for unvaccinated people.

I'm vaccinated and I'm German. Your suggestion ignores that vaccinated people are part of the transmission chain exactly as the non-vaccinated. We believed that vaccinated wouldn't transmit it, but they do. Kids too. If you are vaccinated and visit your grandma, you are putting her in risk. Testing everyone and quarantining the positives still our best bet to avoid social conflict while trying to fight this pandemic.

References:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/impfdurchbruec... (german)

WIth this attitude you will never visit your grandma again. The classic influenza lineage has been around since 1918.

Exactly

which attitude? The only way to visit your grandma safe is testing. PCR.

So if vaccinated people can still spread the virus, what is achieved by preventing the unvaccinated from eating in restaurants?

- Vaccinated people (presumably) shed lower viral loads. Just that both can spread them does not mean that there's no difference in transmission rates.

- Unvaccinated people are at greater risk of complications from catching COVID, so limiting the avenues for transmission to them helps curb fatality rates and hospital occupancy.

- And, undoubtedly, it's also an incentive for individuals to get vaccinated. Again, with the goal to reduce the overall number of hospitalizations and deaths.

> Unvaccinated people are at greater risk of complications from catching COVID, so limiting the avenues for transmission to them helps curb fatality rates and hospital occupancy.

I’m tired of this argument. Unless one has a medical condition preventing them from being vaccinated, who cares? We somehow got in a state where we protect unvaccinated minority who doesn’t care about how inconvenient they make the lives of everyone else.

One way of convincing people to vaccinate may be to make the ecmo treatment non-coverable under medical insurance for unvaccinated with no confirmed condition preventing vaccination and let’s move on with our lives. What’s the plan otherwise? Another 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

> Unless one has a medical condition preventing them from being vaccinated, who cares? We somehow got in a state where we protect unvaccinated minority who doesn’t care about how inconvenient they make the lives of everyone else.

This wouldn't be such a big problem if the unvaccinated weren't overwhelming the hospitals and ICUs, which affects everybody in case of emergencies or even planned surgeries.

That’s my point. Perhaps they would vaccinate if they knew it will cost €€€€€ when they end up in treatment.

For a 12 year old boy who is as likely to be hospitalized with jab-induced myocarditis as they are to be hospitalized with covid, both options cost $$

>(presumably)

They've studied this and shown it to be untrue.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim...

There is basically no difference in transmission rates. Look at the study linked in the RKI FAQ (eyre et Al I believe). It is a clear-cut contact tracing study.

You were infected? -> who were you in close contact with? -> did they get infected?

Result? Negligible impact, rapidly declining. Reducing your contacts by 30% has a much greater impact on spread than vaccination does.

that's what I said. The only real solution would be: Everything open to every one, the only condition should be a negative test, valid for 24 hours. Like it is today, the vaccinated still carrying virus around and the unvaccinated do home party with other people and no tests are involved. The only benefit from the vaccine is that it reduces the changes to go ICU. The RKI institute in Germany says that 94% of people on ICU are unvaccinated.. P=0.94 is a strong correlation.

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/corona-studie-impfdu...

I agree with you on everything, except 94% is out of date. 35% of ICU patients are now vaccinated, 46% in the 60+ age group. And the percentage keeps rising, especially in the most vulnerable group > 60.

Check out their weekly reports, the relevant tables are usually around page 21 or 22. In the most recent one, it's on page 24.

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus...

The numbers aren't my opinion. I just read what ZDF wrote.

The Ms. Wagenknecht said something similar with the numbers presented by you: From 3000 people on the ICU, 2/3 were unvaccinated. A pretty high number of Vaccinated.

Reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS5-qOCSZhQ

And what the ZDF wrote is from August and thus completely out of date. GP is completely correct.

Not to mention that at this time the RKI was still counting reported hospitalizations into the "unvaccinated" category if there was no vaccination status known.

Currently that figure is at around 60% of all reported hospitalizations and can be checked by everyone, since the raw data is public.

Non issue, if you are vaccinated and not old you will not die to 3dp.

If you're not vaccinated and not old you will not die to 1-2dp.

It's finished, done, boring now.

Why does anyone care about cases?

If I get corona I get a bad cold.

Non issue for the vaccinated below 70.

Complaining about straw-man arguments is not bringing much. The facts are: the scanners code is opensource and does not phone home. The rest is fantasy - a valid ethical discussion of course, and it's up to us to discuss it properly (that is, keeping in touch with reality).

A restaurant or company could use its own scanner app to save the data, but I assume this would be illegal

Technically they could - if they had the skills (a restaurant with programmer staff?), had a the reason (risking to alienate the customers?) and had the guts to go against GDPR (somebody will spill the beans). So...

QR codes aren't effective at all as a surveillance mechanism. Why the hell does the government need to monitor which venues you visit based on QR code check-ins? They literally just ask Apple, Google, or any other big tech company about your phones geolocation and IP log history to monitor your whereabouts.

Most people with accounts to these platforms have credit-cards, payment history and communication with others. There is nothing particularly special about vaccination QR codes being more unique than any of the other multitudes of data you already provide, willingly, to these tech corps.

Asking Google or Apple means asking a foreign corporation, likely through legal means and definitely targeted to individuals, not population-wide.

Checking logs of a state-run server is way easier.

The QR verification app doesn't ping back to a server, though. You can literally check. It's open source.

Not true. I just spent half an hour googling and otherwise looking for the source code, and it's not published anywhere (Czech version - apps named "čTečka" and "Tečka").

Sorry for the reality check: said states make requests all the time to Google and Apple and also receive the requested data, and we have apparently no issue with this. Instead we use an imaginary feature no scanner outside China has (phoning home) and complain about that.

That's alright - because that request goes through courts. When the state owns the server being requested, they just read the logs without having to consult a judge.

"Things are already bad, therefore it's okay if they get worse!"

> Asking Google or Apple means asking a foreign corporation, likely through legal means and definitely targeted to individuals, not population-wide.

Which would be a local telco.

Not really. My telco sees encrypted traffic only.

We are talking about check-ins and location tracking. Your telco knows where you are.

No, we're talking about actual user data. My position is only very small part of the whole story. While my telco can triangulate me, that's not as useful (precise) as you'd think, especially in vertically built-up areas and/or behind walls.

No. Original point:

> QR codes aren't effective at all as a surveillance mechanism. Why the hell does the government need to monitor which venues you visit based on QR code check-ins? They literally just ask Apple, Google, or any other big tech company about your phones geolocation and IP log history to monitor your whereabouts.

This is about locating a user based on QR code scanned at a venue. All I’m saying: no need to ask Apple or Google. Your telco already knows you have been at a location at the time of the venue.

My telco is most definitely not able to determine which particular restaurant, shop or highrise apartment I visited (I know because I have direct experience with requesting this data from telcos via courts and how precise it actually is).

Telcos can calculate approximately where I was (with accuracy worse than raw unaided GPS - so ±10m at least, and unpredictably wrong if I'm behind a wall or in a vertically built-up area) at a particular point in time - but they don't know the exact timestamp to look for.

Nothing will change with biometric and other mass surveillance either - the temporary feeling of security will always put these things first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com