6 ms·

It sure seems like a privacy disaster. How could you say its not?

meibo 5y ago
No server is involved in scanning/verifying the QR codes, the only privacy violation would possibly be the people scanning the code taking the name/DoB for themselves but that would be a GDPR violation and I'd guess no legitimate business would try that. I'd be showing my ID/vax record to those restaurants either way so it just seems like a technicality in the end. If you don't like it, don't use it, like all covid apps in the EU.
- VOSgqcSyGdPhGWP 5y ago
  This includes more information than necessary to verify whether a person has been vaccinated.
  - looperhacks 5y ago
    Which information do you think is unnecessary?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - VOSgqcSyGdPhGWP 5y ago
      Almost all of it. The only thing it needs to contain is name, whether you are "immune" (vaccinated or natural antibodies), and a signature to verify it hasn't been tampered. When you were born, which vaccine you received, and when you received it are not necessary to show that you won't be spreading the disease.
      - Dagonfly 5y ago
        Some EU countries have restrictions that get lifted after the first shot (e.g. entry to Austria), some after the 2nd shot, some 14 days after the 2nd. So the number of doses, the date of the most recent one and which vaccine (not all countries accept Sputnik).
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        How does "Name: John Doe. Vaccinated (or 'Immune'): Yes" tell anyone that you, who are flaunting this pass, are the John Doe who is vaccinated? Names suck as identifiers.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        And downvotes suck as counterarguments.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        And they don't improve with repetition.
- Haemm0r 5y ago
  In Austria you could use https://qr.gv.at https://qr.gv.at to check the qr codes without installing an app. I don't think that it does any further verification than parsing the data.
kevincox 5y ago
It does contain a bit more information than required, such as the specifics of the vaccine. But I think the personal information such as name is required. The code needs to be tied to some form of ID otherwise a single code could be copied and used by everyone. So the name and date of birth are likely used so that it can be compared to your drivers license or passport to ensure that the QR code actually belongs to you.
- girst 5y ago
  >It does contain a bit more information than required, such as the specifics of the vaccine. between eu member states, the acceptance of e.g. sputnik-v (the russian corona vaccine) varies. having the name (or id) of the vaccine in the code allows countries who don't recognize a given vaccine to validate codes issued by other eu nations, who are more open to such a vaccine. (what a horriblly worded sentence, i hope you get what i'm trying to say)
  - kevincox 5y ago
    Yes what is "required" is controversial. What I meant to say is that they could have chosen to go for a yes/no type of verdict but instead they chose to let the reader decide if they consider the protection acceptable. Both decisions have pros and cons.
    - distances 5y ago
      What's "acceptable" can vary by country. They couldn't have done this with the acceptance bit only.
      - lxgr 5y ago
        Additionally, the situation is constantly changing. A vaccine effective today might be considered insufficient tomorrow, e.g. due to mutations, new studies etc.
- sunshineforever 5y ago

No server is involved in scanning/verifying the QR codes, the only privacy violation would possibly be the people scanning the code taking the name/DoB for themselves but that would be a GDPR violation and I'd guess no legitimate business would try that. I'd be showing my ID/vax record to those restaurants either way so it just seems like a technicality in the end. If you don't like it, don't use it, like all covid apps in the EU.

VOSgqcSyGdPhGWP 5y ago
This includes more information than necessary to verify whether a person has been vaccinated.
- looperhacks 5y ago
  Which information do you think is unnecessary?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - VOSgqcSyGdPhGWP 5y ago
    Almost all of it. The only thing it needs to contain is name, whether you are "immune" (vaccinated or natural antibodies), and a signature to verify it hasn't been tampered. When you were born, which vaccine you received, and when you received it are not necessary to show that you won't be spreading the disease.
    - Dagonfly 5y ago
      Some EU countries have restrictions that get lifted after the first shot (e.g. entry to Austria), some after the 2nd shot, some 14 days after the 2nd. So the number of doses, the date of the most recent one and which vaccine (not all countries accept Sputnik).
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      How does "Name: John Doe. Vaccinated (or 'Immune'): Yes" tell anyone that you, who are flaunting this pass, are the John Doe who is vaccinated? Names suck as identifiers.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        And downvotes suck as counterarguments.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        And they don't improve with repetition.
Haemm0r 5y ago
In Austria you could use https://qr.gv.at https://qr.gv.at to check the qr codes without installing an app. I don't think that it does any further verification than parsing the data.

kevincox 5y ago

It does contain a bit more information than required, such as the specifics of the vaccine. But I think the personal information such as name is required. The code needs to be tied to some form of ID otherwise a single code could be copied and used by everyone. So the name and date of birth are likely used so that it can be compared to your drivers license or passport to ensure that the QR code actually belongs to you.

girst 5y ago
>It does contain a bit more information than required, such as the specifics of the vaccine. between eu member states, the acceptance of e.g. sputnik-v (the russian corona vaccine) varies. having the name (or id) of the vaccine in the code allows countries who don't recognize a given vaccine to validate codes issued by other eu nations, who are more open to such a vaccine. (what a horriblly worded sentence, i hope you get what i'm trying to say)
- kevincox 5y ago
  Yes what is "required" is controversial. What I meant to say is that they could have chosen to go for a yes/no type of verdict but instead they chose to let the reader decide if they consider the protection acceptable. Both decisions have pros and cons.
  - distances 5y ago
    What's "acceptable" can vary by country. They couldn't have done this with the acceptance bit only.
    - lxgr 5y ago
      Additionally, the situation is constantly changing. A vaccine effective today might be considered insufficient tomorrow, e.g. due to mutations, new studies etc.
sunshineforever 5y ago