In 2020, COVID-19 derailed the privacy debate in the U.S.

In 2020, COVID-19 derailed the privacy debate in the U.S.: From biometric monitoring to unregulated contact tracing, the crisis opened up new privacy vulnerabilities that regulators did little to address.

[Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation] is at least relieved that so many of the "bad ideas" that emerged at the beginning of 2020 have not been adopted in the U.S. But as the pandemic rages on through 2021, the fight for privacy in the face of a global health crisis will undoubtedly continue.

 

Early evidence of effectiveness of digital contact tracing for SARS-CoV-2 in Switzerland

Early evidence of effectiveness of digital contact tracing for SARS-CoV-2 in Switzerland: A growing number of governments have launched or announced EN-based contact tracing apps, but their effectiveness remains unknown. Here, we report early findings of the digital contact tracing app deployment in Switzerland. We demonstrate proof-of-principle that digital contact tracing reaches exposed contacts, who then test positive for SARS-CoV-2. This indicates that digital contact tracing is an effective complementary tool for controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Continued technical improvement and international compatibility can further increase the efficacy, particularly also across country borders.

Spain to keep register of those who refuse Covid vaccine

Coronavirus: Spain to keep register of those who refuse Covid vaccine: In an interview with La Sexta television on Monday, [the health minister] Mr Illa emphasised that vaccination would not be mandatory. 

"What will be done is a register, which will be shared with our European partners... of those people who have been offered it and have simply rejected it," he said. 

"It is not a document which will be made public and it will be done with the utmost respect for data protection." 

 He added: "People who are offered a therapy that they refuse for any reason, it will be noted in the register... that there is no error in the system, not to have given this person the possibility of being vaccinated."

2020 must be the last year of lockdown.

Lockdown: a deadly, failed experiment: It has been a global catastrophe. We must never go down this road again. ...

In the developing world, where Covid itself has had a much lesser impact than in the West, lockdowns have disrupted an estimated 80 per cent of programmes aimed at treating tuberculosis. In 2019, TB killed 1.4million people worldwide. But this year, thanks to a 25 per cent reduction in case detections, 1.7million deaths have been projected.

One of the greatest costs – which cannot be quantified in lives lost or dollar signs – has been to freedom. And this goes deeper than the (hopefully) temporary curbs on everyday life. Our entire culture of freedom has collapsed. We now need and expect the state’s explicit permission for whatever limited activities we can do. Even Christmas can now be cancelled by the state.

 

 

 

 

Covid-19 : partout en Europe, les libertés ont reculé

Covid-19 : partout en Europe, les libertés ont reculé: De plus, aucune autorité, même pas la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme ne se reconnaît, sauf très rares exceptions, le droit de vérifier si les mesures ainsi édictées pour déroger aux dispositions de la convention sont vraiment « nécessaires dans une société démocratique ».

Au nom du bien suprême sanitaire

Il suffit aux États d’invoquer par exemple la protection de la santé publique pour annihiler les droits les plus fondamentaux. Une lecture correcte des textes supposerait que des juges puissent vérifier si les mesures sont vraiment nécessaires à la protection de la santé publique.

Dans la pratique, en raison d’une conception étriquée de la séparation des pouvoirs, ils s’abstiennent pratiquement toujours d’effectuer cette vérification, considérant que celle-ci relève, suivant les cas, du législatif ou de l’exécutif.

Tout ceci n’est pas conforme à l’idée des droits fondamentaux que se faisaient, par exemple, les pères fondateurs de la Constitution américaine. Pour eux, le seul véritable contrat social est que dans une démocratie la majorité décide à condition de respecter les droits fondamentaux qui, eux, sont absolus.

Comme le disait Ayn Rand, « mes droits ne sont pas sujets à un vote ». Nous voyons qu’aujourd’hui, en invoquant des quantités de prétextes, dont une prétendue défense contre un nouveau virus, l’État peut transformer les citoyens en sujets soumis à des contrôles de police pour le moindre déplacement la nuit, en raison d’un couvre-feu, et aussi pour des tas de raisons le jour, y compris pour fêter Noël en famille.

C’est là le premier chantier à ouvrir dans l’après Covid : modifier les lois fondamentales pour restituer leurs libertés aux individus.

Why this campaign of terror?

Why this campaign of terror? Never outside war time have populations been subjected to such outrageous assault and battery by government propaganda machines 

In a genuine pandemic, this constant mental battering would be superfluous. If the Black Death were raging outside my door, government would know full well that they didn’t have to fork out millions to convince me to stay inside;  more likely, they would have to pay me to leave the house. 

Yet this government has bought the mass media lock, stock and barrel, at vast expense, with the sole purpose, it seems, of hammering home a message of impending doom. Instead of calming our fears with facts and rational arguments, they have seen fit to flood the airwaves with slogans calculated to maintain panic; with disingenuous appeals to the emotions; with out-of-context death counts, wilful obfuscation of the difference between cases and infections, a criminally dodgy PCR test and graphs and computer models (rubbish in, rubbish out) carefully selected to emphasise the worst possible eventualities.

Paper beats app: Vaccine verification will likely be proven offline. Here's why.

Paper beats app: Vaccine verification will likely be proven offline. Here's why.: It's an intuitive idea: an app that provides proof that a person has received a coronavirus vaccine. 

Plenty of technologists are working to make it a reality. Companies of all sizes have been pouring in resources: Microsoft, major airlines, Ticketmaster, prominent nonprofits, security companies, tech startups and blockchain companies are all taking hacks at what some call vaccine passports. Apple and Google have participated in discussions about how to create digital Covid-19 vaccine certificates, experts said, but they haven't announced plans. 

But behind the scenes, the realities of medical records, privacy concerns and the virus itself mean such products are unlikely to be widely available in the coming months, experts said. 

"This is something that almost no one can focus on right now," said Rebecca Coyle, executive director of the American Immunization Registry Association, a membership organization for state and local vaccine registries. She said digital Covid-19 certificates may seem like "a nice shiny object" but might not be a reality for many months.

Covid used as pretext to curtail civil rights around the world, finds report

Covid used as pretext to curtail civil rights around the world, finds report:

The state of civil liberties around the world is bleak, according to a new study which found that 87% of the global population were living in nations deemed “closed”, “repressed” or “obstructed”.

The figure is a 4% increase on last year’s, as civil rights were found to have deteriorated in almost every country in the world during Covid-19. A number of governments have used the pandemic as an excuse to curtail rights such as free speech, peaceful assembly and freedom of association, according to Civicus Monitor, an alliance of civil society groups which assessed 196 countries.

By using methods such as detention of protesters, excessive use of force, censorship, attacks on journalists, and harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders, many governments have used Covid-19 to “introduce or implement additional restrictions on civic freedoms”, the report said.

Estado de emergência é quando um homem quiser

Estado de emergência é quando um homem quiser: o Presidente da República escreveu no preâmbulo do seu decreto que “é previsível que esta renovação se tenha de estender pelo menos por um período até 7 de janeiro, permitindo desde já ao Governo prever e anunciar as medidas a tomar durante os períodos de Natal e Ano Novo, tanto mais que a vacinação só começará a ter aplicação generalizada ao longo do ano de 2021. Tal implicará novo decreto presidencial, precedido de parecer do Governo e de autorização da Assembleia da República, já dentro de alguns dias”.

É sabido que os preâmbulos dos diplomas não têm valor jurídico, não passando de afirmações feitas pelo legislador destinadas a contextualizar e explicar as normas que aprova. No entanto, e como claramente era intenção do Presidente, tal permitiu ao Governo aprovar o decreto 11/2020, de 6 de Dezembro, que refere expressamente no seu art.o 1.o que “o presente decreto regulamenta a prorrogação do estado de emergência efetuada pelo Decreto do Presidente da República n.o 61-A/2020, de 4 de dezembro, bem como a eventual renovação do mesmo”. E esse diploma anuncia nos seus artigos 44.o e seguintes já uma série de medidas para os dias 24 de Dezembro e seguintes, referindo o art.o 44.o que “caso se verifique a renovação do estado de emergência a partir das 00:00 h do dia 24 de dezembro, é prorrogada a vigência do presente decreto, com as alterações constantes do presente capítulo, salvo se a situação epidemiológica impuser uma revisão intercalar a 18 de dezembro”.

Temos assim que uma renovação do estado de emergência que não está decretada já está a ser regulamentada pelo Governo e, portanto, a ser executada, violando claramente a regra constitucional da duração do estado de emergência. Ora, não é por acaso que a Constituição estabelece esse prazo, exigindo que uma situação, que é de emergência, não seja banalizada, como acontece claramente com esta regulamentação antecipada de um estado de emergência não decretado. É além disso inconcebível que através de um decreto do Governo se pretenda desde já executar um decreto presidencial que ainda não existe, o que constitui claramente uma violação da separação e interdependência dos órgãos de soberania, exigida pelo art.o 111.o da Constituição.