Ah right, you just replied to “EU cannot” as if EU CAN and already DOES - but in reality you refer to Russia which merely occupies part of the Europe.
@ruff you are right in the sense the comment by @licryco does not answer your call for references. However, I applaud him for being open about it under the circumstances he’s in and posting his response anyway, elaborating on his dire situation which in fact shows how a covid passport is used to cripple any form of for freedom what European citizens would consider to be human rights and not being able to get basic things done without a closed ecosystem in fact can and probably will be used as a mass surveillance system.
The Russian situation has been conceived in a different political landscape yet our EU politics do not move away from that concept either. Looking at the intended purposes of getting all European governments aligned to get this passport to become a reality confirms just that. In itself the proposal is the reference we are made to believe vaccinations plus a digital passport is our way out and to overcome the economic and practical barriers to get back to a pre-covid global society. Governments being under pressure, most citizens being fed up […] with the pandemic we’ll probably see that such an agreement will be made soon, with too little time and interest in privacy related issues.
Will implementing the covid passport be the holy grail for 2021? I believe that what @licryco is stating could also well be our future if we let this passport become a reality and therefore could be seen as a warning and future reference to what will unfold, especially when Apple, Google and MS are involved, companies our goverments (think they) have to rely on to get back in control. So it’s a matter of the EU allowing to set a precedent, rather then ‘CAN and DOES’.
Absolutely agree, I was just a bit perplexed if had missed anything and “it is happening again” already.
About enforcement: why it is different that forcing me to use Zoom? Universities in EU force the use of Zoom. And if you say that I do not install zoom, so I will not attend lectures/conferences, then you either have to quit your studies, or if you are the professor you will have serious problems with the law because it is by the law obligatory to attend official meetings of the department or select candidates for a position.
So yes, they force commercial programs and there is not way out. So I see no reason why they will hesitate to force a Google or Apple application.
Which is false. Unis are inviting you to digital lectures. Up to you to visit them. You don’t need to install anything, suffice to use web plugin. Same as in business, different clients using different collaboration & communication solutions, up to you to visit the business meetings or not.
Who is they? The EU, your own government or [insert here] ?
Could it have been the Universities ICT management ignorance? Lack of knowledge by the general public perhaps that made people turn to that one tech company because it was presented as free of charge, easy accessible and therefore a convenience good for the short term since hardly anyone expected this epedemic to last, even to be compared with influenza?
This is pretty “apples and oranges.” I pay for college classes, so whether I attend is up to me (excepting classes with professors who factor attendance into one’s grade, I had more than one of those).
Contrarily, I am being paid to work for the company who holds business meetings, so there’s more than a little obligation to attend those, particularly if a customer is involved.
That’s if you look at fiscal gain/lose perspective. If you abstract from money and look at added value - you invest money and time to get knowledge, practice and title/grade. You invest time, knowledge (and maybe labour) to gain money. And no, you are not obliged to visit either lectures or business meetings, it won’t immediately and directly affect either your knowledge/practice/title (grade) or business relationship (money). But it will have its negative impact meaning you’ll need to spare extra effort to mitigate this negative impact.
P.S. I don’t know how in other unis but in mine attendance had only minor negative effect, nothing you cannot compensate with knowledge.
Not true. The first problem is the Terms of Service. It s unacceptable. For example, the University teaches several languages. So we do have Iranians teaching the language. The terms of zoom does not allow us to talk to them even if they are in our country and not Iran. Same goes for other countries USA do not like. I am sure the same happens in US. It can’t be that languages are not taught anywhere in the US universities.
both true and false. For me it is the local government. But I hear from colleagues in other countries that they face similar issues. So it is not an EU directive, but it is common practice. It is a complex issue. The government authorizes an entity to provide teleconference services to Universities for department assemblies and electing people for jobs in the academia. The entity organizes a token service based on Zoom that guarantees who is connected is the right person.
I talked to this entity and the answer is “we do not care for foss, if you do not like it do not use it”. But the law forces me to participate to these meetings. It is my obligation. So the only solution is to take to the ministry. But do you think they listen? 
I know. This common practice has evolved based on this perception by the general public, which include the members of the entity, that we have easy to use OS and application to our disposal at all times, if not the big tech that watches over them will provide it to them (like a Covid app, Covid passport database). We have been indoctrinated by this system to make us believe that the majority of the population is using those as their main system and appear happy with it. Even if they don’t they are not told or educated how to switch to other platforms and fear to take a stand when they would, hence people sticking to mainstream as told by their peers. Besides, those who would be willing are likely to face a lack in support from the same peers - both idealogically and technically -.
It is the majority that counts as it’s the most easy way out for Uni’s and local governments’ decision maker and not having to account for the minority of vigilantes who are expected to just follow up on the instructions.
Having locked themselves in over time, persons and therefore entities will not go through the hassle of looking at alternative and even better solutions, as they fear the cascading effect resulting in having to rebuild their cluttered ICT, even if they know they should.
If we want this common practice to change we should be heard by the EU, best to bring forward your concerns to your EMP of choice. The EU currently reviewing the DMA and SDA proposals, this is your and our best shot in the long run. Using our right to vote for a dedicated representative is next. It’ll be a slow process, unless something really scandalous and explosive would occur, like an unvealed Zoom meeting involving a restricted session with EMPs.
@antonis
Have you ever invited your professor in an alternative session yourself, like a Jitsi meet initiated by you? How did he/she respond?
I am the Professor. I teach with Jitsi and mumble on partially written notes. Students love the procedure with mumble. Because they print the partially written notes, concentrate on their paper and follow the course filling in the gaps with my help. They mostly hate other methods because they can not concentrate on Math on the screen and they get tired and bored. Their eyes hurt with many hours on screen.
But I can not escape departments meetings and electorates. I am obliged by the law to use what the system offers, and it offers zoom exclusively.
This is good advise. I will try that. Thanks.
I remember the old days when the “system” was refusing to send documents in anything else but .doc. We could not open doc documents on Linux in the late 90ies. And they would refuse to send, say an .rtf. So you had to have Windows in one way or the other. So now with zoom I have a dejavu…
So you are speaking about enterprise tools then. Which again has nothing to do with your liberties. Your employer is providing you with necessary tools and workplace environment. You may disagree with it but that’s how it works. If it does not fulfill your needs - you can always escalate. For your own activity you can use whatever tools and means you want as long as it does not contradict with employer’s policy.
Tell this to Stallman 
Really? Of course it does. I am not allowed to talk to people from countries that US dislikes. So I violate the license when I have the child of a Cuban immigrant student in my class. I teach from home because of covid and participate in meetings from home because of covid. I am forced to use zoom on MY pc not of the University’s. If zoom opens connections to Facebook (as it is reported to do by several people including Stallman) it is MY liberty which is violated. I wonder @ruff how did you come to this conclusion that it has nothing to do with my liberties.
To get back to the original issue and not further de-rail the discussion, I do not think EU will hesitate to produce immunization passports in cooperation with Google and Apple. And to avoid any blame they will most probably have an independent entity to develop the android and iOS application (outsourcing). So we will be forced to use android or iOS (or anbox if that will work with it).
1 Like
But that’s not true. Each service has certain restrictions and/or limitations, As an employer I cannot fulfill each and every whim of the employee, I need to find a good balance to keep the company running.
Now if you are telling the digital workplace services your employer is providing to you are not sufficient to fulfill your responsibilities/duties - you should escalate to your employer and find a solution, instead of whining on community boards about your liberties and politics and everyone’s fault (but yours).
As usual, it boils down to institutions you have an agreement with making people come into contracts with third parties, and that those contracts have restrictions the original contract never had.
2 Likes