This is bluff and bluster from the NSW police minister. The Premier has already disagreed with this move. And expect a very firm ‘get stuffed’ from the big retail industry.
1 Like
Totally agree.
Where we are now is certainly challenging NSW.
The resources required for contact tracing are stretched.
NSW Health said its tracing teams included at least 550 staff working directly with confirmed COVID-19 cases and contacts.
“There are also more than 400 extra staff assisting in a surge capacity, in line with previous outbreaks,” the spokeswoman said.
The department has employed state-based staff from government agencies and private companies, with up to 30 colleagues in Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT also helping out with case interviews.
For the smaller states with far fewer resources the ability to contact trace is substantially less. Hopefully their early and hard lockdown strategies meet are sufficient for now.
1 Like
Very OT for ‘doing the right thing’ but there seems no depth to the depravity conspiracy mongers and antisocial all about themselves freedom lovers will go to …
5 Likes
Disappointing but …
data was only accessed by authorities in the event of an outbreak
We already know that this is false. In several states of Australia, the authorities have already been caught doing the wrong thing.
Deliberately avoiding checking in would only hamper contact tracing and extend the lockdown further
This is a classic example of the benefit of letting the side down provided that not too many people let the side down. You get the benefit of everybody else doing the right thing but you get the benefit of not yourself doing the right thing. (This is not a new problem.)
In other words, if 0.1% of people are doing fake check-ins then, no, it doesn’t really hamper contact tracing. If 20% of people are doing fake check-ins then it probably does hamper contact tracing. (These percentages chosen for illustrative purposes only. I don’t know what the actual numbers should be in order to be accurate.)
Look, I totally get why someone would want to do a fake check-in. I hate that in the current circumstances the government is tracking me business to business, as I go about my day. You don’t have to think that COVID is a hoax or a conspiracy in order to be concerned about the ever-expanding surveillance state.
I don’t use the app at all. I use the web site instead - because the app is even worse from a surveillance point of view.
Users are instructed to “flash the tick quickly” to avoid business owners asking questions about the IP address that appears above the confirmation screen.
I don’t understand this bit. If it’s a fake check-in app, surely it can display a fake IP address that would match whatever comes up with the real app? (However as stated above, I don’t use the app, so this may be referring to something that I have never seen.)
In any case, I doubt too many business owners would know what the IP address should be.
However to show that I am part of the solution and not part of the problem, here are three proposed solutions offered at no cost. 
- Low spec
When a business gets a QR code, they are also given a random 4 digit code.
When you successfully and legitimately check in to that business, the screen displays the 4 digit code in close proximity to the green tick. All the business has to do is be able to remember the code and see that it is correct.
Weaknesses: Once a dodgy customer has visited the business the first time, they can remember the code themselves and thereafter the fake app could in theory produce the correct code.
Through a crowdsourcing effort among dodgy customers, codes could be shared and available even for businesses that the particular customer had never visited.
Good points: No additional software required for business or customer.
2A. Better
When you successfully and legitimately check in to a business, the screen displays a digitally signed QR code containing such details as: a timestamp, the name of the business, the number of people.
The business then scans the resulting QR code with an app, which validates the authenticity of the QR code and displays the contained information. The business checks that the timestamp is ‘about now’ and that the business is them and that the number of people is correct.
Weakness: Requires new version of customer app that can receive the content for the QR code and display it as a QR code. (The web site will just work provided that the government makes the necessary changes to the web site.) Also requires a new app for the business to run in order to validate the resulting QR code.
2B. Better
When you successfully and legitimately check in to a business, the government transmits the details to the business, which are displayed on the business’s computer as they come in.
So if you didn’t validly check in (“fake app”), there will be a mismatch between the green tick on your screen and what they are seeing on their screen i.e. you will be missing from their screen.
Weaknesses: Requires a new app for the business to run in order to display incoming check-ins.
Requires the business to have a reliable internet connection.
May raise some new privacy issues since your name, your dependents and potentially your phone number will be transmitted to the business.
1 Like
Victoria claims they asked ‘airline staff’ to check for valid cross-border travel permits prior to boarding planes in Sydney. The reply was essentially ‘not our job’.
Imagine expanding that across all of business, and it isn’t their job at the end of the day even if it should or could be unless it is made their job by government legislation. Who then pays and who has liability for doing it accurately? No need to ‘go there’.
2 Likes
It may differ from state to state (in the details) but I think the existing Health Order would require a business to verify that any customer that they admit to the business has checked in.
I offered Option 1 as low impact / low impost.
Businesses can already be fined for non-compliance. Is that nice or a good thing to happen? No, but that’s life.
Cross-border is obviously more complex since by definition it spans jurisdictions. That kind of thing already happens substantially with international travel (not in the context of COVID) but as you suggest it may require legislation to make it happen. This is getting far away from the topic though of “fake check-ins”.
2 Likes
The topic is actually ‘Doing the Right Thing’ and I noted in my post about fake checkins it was essentially ‘doing the wrong thing’ and OT. Is OT of OT back on track? 
3 Likes
France requires compliance with a person having a QR code to be served at Eating establishments, the individual QR code is scanned by staff to ensure the guest is entitled to be there using the facilities. A passport if you like, we accept passports that track our travel and ability to be in a place, too much angst on this procedure to ensure lessening transmission of a disease. I certainly don’t like being tracked but in this case the lesser of two evils in my opinion.
5 Likes
- List item
NOT Doing the Right Thing!
One for us all to be watchful for.
Unfortunately after more than two weeks in the wild according to the report the Apps remain available. 
4 Likes
Choice recently did an article on the Nokia 2720 Flip where the QR scanning capability was discussed. Choice only tested the in-built QR code scanner, and the article does not specify whether government check in apps are supported on the OS (for example QR check in codes in WA require the SafeWA app). Could this lead to confusion for people who are less tech savvy?
2 Likes
In this topic, this comment could be confusing though because we are talking about two completely different QR codes - the one exhibited by the business (links to state government web site to allow a check in for that specific business) - the one issued to the vaccinated person (contains a digitally-signed document proving that the person has been vaccinated and providing details).
The health passport (vaccination passport) is quite controversial in France. Likewise, if we ever reach, say, 55% fully vaccinated here then I expect it will be controversial here too. (I do expect we will reach 55% fully vaccinated.)
In theory the vaccination passport does not need to be a tracking mechanism. The business should be able to validate the passport without a) storing any details or b) transmitting any details or c) even being online at the time. Having said that
- I am not familiar with France’s vaccination passport.
- We have no idea how Australia’s hypothetical vaccination passport will operate, since it doesn’t exist yet.
- The Australian government is unlikely to be transparent about how the passport will operate, so you would be taking on trust that, for example, the business does not store or transmit the details that it reads from your vaccination passport.
It is also possible that for a certain period of time, we would be obligated to do both: check-in and present vaccination passport. In that case, it would be a more efficient process if the vaccination passport details did get stored or transmitted (thereby covering the check-in as well) - so both evils, not lesser of two evils. 
2 Likes
QR scanning ability is one thing. Running the Gov applications is another.
All of my devices, phones and pad, scan QR codes and can take action based on the decoded content.
None of my devices can install the Fed Gov Covidsafe application, or the Vic Gov QR scan in application.
And I have no intention of spending lots of money just to upgrade to the latest versions of devices.
2 Likes
We will and as eligible Australians with one or two doses is near 50% and number of daily vaccinations continue to accelerate, it will be only a relatively short time before 55% fully vaccinated is reached.
2 Likes
From my understanding the French passport means that an individual has a personalised QR code, they show this to the business who scan it and get a response from the French Govt system that verifies the holder holds the required status to be able to be present at the establishment. Therefore there is tracking.
1 Like
One has to wonder if our highly reliable, well thought out systems with NBN reliability and total wireless coverage would enable anything similar for us.
1 Like
ROLOL No hope of it coping without interruption, too many outages and non covered areas to say with certainty that it will work reliably enough.
More fibre rollout and less reliant on other forms of nbn™ would help change that outlook.
1 Like
Of the eligible Aussies aged 16 and over:
- 48.7% have had at least one vaccination dose
- Including 26.9% who have had the second and are fully vaccinated.
Which is great progress if late.
Note:
This leaves 21.8% or approx 4.5 million to get the second dose to get near the target. The current vaccination capacity needs to allow for all those still in the queue for their first vax dose. With 8-12 weeks between AZ doses depending on which region and state it looks to be a goal that is still several months distant, if that is a relatively short time.
Someone else might like to explain the maths and why simply dividing the doses still to be administered by the current weekly vaccination rate will not provide a reliable target date. There will be a tapering tail to finish of one to two months when the last in the queue are waiting the recommended time between doses. At least 3 weeks for Pfizer, and 8-12 weeks for AZ.
Because the rate of administrating vaccines has been accelerating over time. If you look at the graph on this page,
the line is curving up meaning there is continuing upward growth (in general each week the number administered is greater than the previous week). If one used this week’s vaccination rate, the line would be straight.
Other countries, and Australia will find the same, as the percentage of eligible persons being vaccinated approaches the percentage of the population willing to be vaccinated, the curve will start to flatten until such time everyone who is willing and is eligible is vaccinated (curve will then flatline if any booster shots are ignored).
When Moderna vaccines are delivered, these could cause further short acceleration of vaccination rates as there will be additional number of vaccines available for use. When this occurs, the vaccination rate curve could have a steeper upwards trajectory.
A lot of the new doses being administered are Pfizer though and that automatically shrinks the timeframe. At the same time there are some who are in the new compressed AZ timeframe i.e. who had their first dose more recently than about 8 weeks and who have no option but to wait for the time to elapse (rather than waiting for supply, the supply is there).
To be honest, I just said that I expect we will reach 55% fully vaccinated and I didn’t put a timeframe on it because there are too many variables and really I have no idea when.
That’s the crux of it. Are there different and dynamic rules that apply depending on the person, the establishment and changing over time? Or is it a simple yes/no (valid vaccination certificate or not)?
The first approach is more flexible but admits the possibility of tracking and may be unnecessary (and does require 24x7 internet availability).
The second approach gives a simple yes/no proof of vaccination but does not require internet and can be done without admitting the possibility of tracking. The only flexibility is that the vaccination certificate can indicate partial v. full vaccination if different rules were to apply depending on that distinction (with the assumption therefore that a new certificate is issued when a person has the second dose).
1 Like
