ACLU conclusion: The existing legal framework may not be sufficient to prevent this information from being shared, especially if it is held by private entities. Many members of marginalized communities, including immigrant communities, might have reason to fear that their health status information will be used for law enforcement or immigration purposes, or to affect government benefits or health insurance. Once an immunity surveillance infrastructure is created for one purpose, there may be mission creep and moves to expand it into other contexts — such as by conditioning certain travel or access to housing on COVID-19 immunity. As a result, immunity status may be stored with other personal details, such as travel, employment, or housing information, heightening the intrusiveness of an immunity passport system. As tempting as immunity passports may be for policymakers who want a quick fix to restart economic activity in the face of widespread suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, they present both public health and civil rights concerns that cannot be overlooked. Immunity passports incentivize vulnerable people to contract the disease, and raise the prospect of another hierarchical system, separating us into two categories — those with COVID-19 immunity, who are given preferential access to employment, housing, or public accommodations — and those without. This division would likely worsen existing racial, disability, and economic disparities in America and lead people struggling to afford basic necessities to deliberately risk their health. Until there is a reliable, affordable, and widely accessible treatment or vaccine for COVID-19, employers must maintain best practices to protect workers and reduce COVID-19 transmission in workplaces. Instead of expending resources on the development of immunity passports, policymakers should focus on the implementation of widespread, free, and quick testing for COVID-19, without creating a new privacy-invasive data infrastructure that threatens everyone’s rights. There are better ways to both advance public health and protect individual rights that we should focus on in order to emerge from this crisis.
Lulz that escalated quickly. A bit... MUCH? Geez. "One minute you're wiping your ass, the next minute you're getting nuked from your toilet. I KNOW, I'm a CEO."
many of the concerns about immunity passports carry over to concerns about vaccine passports, e.g., Connecticut ACLU: https://www.wfsb.com/news/talks-abo...cle_6a725934-8cd5-11eb-9599-eb7ffda71691.html excerpt: The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut hopes it stays this way, calling the idea problematic. “It raises some real civil rights and racial justice concerns. We’re worried that it’s going to create essentially different access to public accommodations,” said David McGuire, of the ACLU of Connecticut. Coronavirus cases and access to the vaccine revealed disparities between people of color and their white counterparts. On top of that, the ACLU said verification raises privacy concerns. "There’s’ always worry over government database and what they’ll be used for and how the use might be expanded," McGuire said. The ACLU of Connecticut said vaccination requirements might force people to opt out of the shots if they have to disclose private information to others.
I got the point Os. Thanks. Doesn't really change anything. Vaccine Passports aren't going to be enforced in the US. Maybe a sticker in the window goes up like with the Mask Mandate, but here in the US, Republicans have the privilege of doing whatever they want to whoever they want. If you need examples, I got plenty. Let's start with the right to vote.
It's interesting that letting pubs voluntarily opt to ban non-vaccinated people would be the deathknell for pubs. It's like any level of critical thinking has just been thrown out the window.
the good news is that you've got well-known leftie Scott Adams on your side critiquing Naomi Wolf's argument--only difference is Scott Adams uses reasons to make his case. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...e_passport_they_could_misuse_any_system.html#!
Immunity passports and vaccination passports compared: "The Libertarian Argument Is the Best Argument Against Immunity Passports. But is it good enough?" http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.u...nst-immunity-passports-but-is-it-good-enough/
Privacy International's statement on immunity passports: https://privacyinternational.org/lo...aster-immunity-passports-and-digital-identity too long to quote but here's the summary: The looming disaster of immunity passports and digital identity A digital ID that proves immunity will raise serious human rights issues. And the failure of the digital ID industry to deal with the issues of exclusion, exploitation and discrimination puts the entire industry under question. KEY FINDINGS 'Immunity passports' are a theoretical credential - most likely digital - that someone can prove that they have either had the virus and recovered, or have had a vaccination. Immunity passports are being hyped as a solution to ending lockdowns around the world by actors including the proponents of digital identity; the digital identity industry; think-tanks; and the travel industry. Yet there is currently no scientific basis for these measures, as highlighted by the WHO. The nature of what information would be held on an immunity passport is currently unknown. The social risks of immunity passports are great: it serves as a route to discrimination and exclusion, particularly if the powers to view these passports falls on people's employers, or the police. The digital identity industry - pushing their own products as immunity passport solutions - is failing to protect against these harms: they are interested in building wider digital identity systems, based on their pre-existing models, rather than developing a genuine solution to the risks of these passports. and conclusion: Conclusion: Coronavirus and the future of digital identity Digital identity and immunity passports seem like a natural fit, and part of a comprehensive response to this pandemic. We are all unprepared to do what it takes to make this work, however, without extensive abuses arising. In fact, digital identity may actually extend the risks of societal harms that come along with immunity passports. The push for their pre-existing solutions reveals an industry interested in pushing their own agenda, rather than a solution to the crisis. We should also take note of what this failure of the industry means for digital identity in the longer-term: it is, after all, not only immunity passports that can be misused. The issues of immunity passports reflect the issues with digital identity more generally. The failings on immunity passports are failings that run deep in our current digital identity landscape. Moving forward, it is clear that - at the moment - immunity passports do not meet the necessary and proportionate test. As our understanding of the nature of immunity changes, this may change - but only for a very limited number of use-cases, and even these need careful consideration. It is a deeply challenging area, and it may very well become the case that there are no use-cases where the benefits outweigh the harms. These decisions have to be primarily made in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society: those who are worst-hit by the pandemic and who look likely to be worse-served by an immunity passport solution. But we must also remember this moment when we look towards the future of digital identity more generally: we were let down. There needs to be a new approach going forward, one that emphasises how the harms caused by digital identity can be mitigated The most important message for the industry is, perhaps, that you don't have to provide a solution to every conceivable use-case for identity. This pandemic should form a check on the hubris of the digital identity industry.
When are people gonna stop letting O's hijack threads by spamming them? He is not here for debate people.
resistance to vaccine passport idea in Germany: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-03-03/europe-coronavirus-vaccinations-passports excerpt: In some European countries, the vaccine passport debate is shadowed by the past. Germany’s Nazi era left it sensitive over singling out certain groups as undeserving of privileges accorded to others — the searing historical parallel being the persecution of Jews, first via social restrictions, then the creation of ghettos, and finally the death camps. In the former East Germany, supposedly egalitarian communist rule afforded luxurious perks to a leadership elite, who drove Western automobiles and drank Western liquor. Decades later, the idea of mandating particular privileges for a limited group still rankles. A poll by ARD television last month found that 68% of Germans were opposed to any kind of special treatment for those who get vaccinated, with just 28% in favor. Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she opposes such privileges until everyone in Germany has at least been offered a vaccination, which isn’t forecast to happen until September. But for some, tying vaccine passports to the personal choice of whether or not to get inoculated risks coercion. “It’s an indirect obligation to get vaccinations,” said Jana Tschitschke, 43, who works in public relations in Berlin. “If the vaccines are really good and really safe, then the benefits to the whole society would then outweigh the interests of a small group of people. But I don’t know when we’re going to know that for sure.” Some countries are debating whether something short of a formal vaccine passport could be used for close-to-home perks like going to the gym or the theater, rather than serving as a required travel document. France already has an app called Everyone Against Covid, which could eventually provide a QR code to enter public venues. Across the EU, as well as in Britain, data protection is an especially contentious issue. It was among the key points cited in a study on health passes published last month by the University of Exeter Law School. The report’s author, Ana Beduschi, cited “sensitive personal health information” used to “create a new distinction between individuals based on their health status, which can then be used to determine the degree of freedoms and rights individuals may enjoy.” Down the road, linking vaccine status to work and school attendance could trigger disputes. Forcing employees to be inoculated would be illegal, said Volker Lipp, the vice chair of Germany’s Ethics Council, an independent government-funded body, but he said private companies could set terms and conditions for clientele to access certain services. more at the link
2 very different birds. One is being killed by the government (to vote) and the other is being killed by the private sector (for whatever business and whatever reasons - b/c that's what American wanted with a few exceptions). It sucks when people think all birds are the same. C'mon, they aren't.
****, America has already turned into Nazi Germany already when I was in grade school and FBISD required immunization records for me to attend. How did we not see this?
