Re: Not "divisive and discriminatory", but essential
"I genuinely do not understand the opposition to being able to prove that you've had the vaccination."
I don't oppose that. What I oppose is a centrally-controlled register of identification to which data can be added. If they produced a card which had my picture and said I was vaccinated, and people looked at it and thought it was probably me, then handed it back, that would be ... well not great but we could talk. They're more likely to have a card with some codes on it which get scanned by a device which promptly uploads it to the internet where a server records where I've been. Why does the government care where I've been enough to store a history of it? They probably have no reason to want it. They probably won't do anything malicious with it. They'll let the person who breaks in and steals the data figure out the malicious use for it. Unless there's someone specific with access who wants to be malicious to a specific person, in which case they now can.
Meanwhile, having that card as a requirement to enter places has problems other than privacy. It makes any type of interaction less efficient while people scan the cards. It means that, should someone lose the card or forget to take it with them, they can't do anything. And perhaps most importantly, it isn't very useful right now. Just taking the time to issue cards to all those with a vaccination will take a long time. Eventually, the vaccination rates will increase such that pretty much everyone has one. If time B is less than time A, then the entire project is a waste of resources. Even if it's the other way around, it's not really that valuable when we already have a mechanism to protect ourselves when in public. When you also consider that the resources being spent on the massive checkpoint database could be spent on getting vaccinations to people faster, that seems like the better use of the resources.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
