Digital surveillance technologies to fight pandemic must respect human rights(ccc.de)
ccc.de
Digital surveillance technologies to fight pandemic must respect human rights
https://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2020/pandemie-menschenrechte
146 comments
But total monitoring and control over the entire global population has always been the goal for people who have so much money and power it's become meaningless.
This virus is just an excuse to accelerate the release of technology and laws that have slowly been trickling out over the last few decades, the last little push as it were.
It's mostly up to people now, whether they decide to listen and be compelled to give up nearly every freedom and right they have in the name of 'safety', or they push back against it.
This virus is just an excuse to accelerate the release of technology and laws that have slowly been trickling out over the last few decades, the last little push as it were.
It's mostly up to people now, whether they decide to listen and be compelled to give up nearly every freedom and right they have in the name of 'safety', or they push back against it.
This won't be the last little push, just the next little push. There'll be another one
I think individual rights should always trump the majority will. Individual rights are natural, unremovable, and should not be up to debate. It’s the reason why the US is a republic and we have a bill of rights > all laws or orders.
It is never that simple... individuals' rights are always going to be coming into conflict. It doesn't mean anything to say individual rights always trump the groups will.
We are always having to adjudicate the boundaries of rights... that is why we have a court system. Where those boundaries are IS up to date, and has changed over time... this is unavoidable, because there is no 'natural' place to put those boundaries.
We are always having to adjudicate the boundaries of rights... that is why we have a court system. Where those boundaries are IS up to date, and has changed over time... this is unavoidable, because there is no 'natural' place to put those boundaries.
This. The US constitution does not grant rights to citizens. It enumerates the rights that were endowed to us by our creator and cannot be taken away from us. This is an important distinction that is frequently overlooked.
> Individual rights are natural
Questionable. Who says you have those rights? The government. They can take them away at any time. Just look at the USA PATRIOT Act.
Questionable. Who says you have those rights? The government. They can take them away at any time. Just look at the USA PATRIOT Act.
[deleted]
So no wiretaps, ever? I'm not so sure...
It’s up to a judge to decide. It has to limited in scope, responsable, and with serious individual suspicion. A lot like current quarantine rulings - mass quarantines are unconstitutional in the US - but we all forget.
[deleted]
> It’s up to a judge to decide.
Yeah, but he enacts the will of the majority ;)
I totally get & agree with the sentiment, but not in the absolutist form. It's always going to be fuzzy, the question is mostly how we weigh the needs of the many and the needs of the few (or the individual). I do believe that the average response to that is strongly reflected in each nation's laws & culture, with the US emphasizing the individual's needs a lot more.
Yeah, but he enacts the will of the majority ;)
I totally get & agree with the sentiment, but not in the absolutist form. It's always going to be fuzzy, the question is mostly how we weigh the needs of the many and the needs of the few (or the individual). I do believe that the average response to that is strongly reflected in each nation's laws & culture, with the US emphasizing the individual's needs a lot more.
You say they are unconstitutional... where are the court rulings saying this?
> Having seen rights being eroded, trampled, mocked, I have realized that we do not have any effective rights. They are a privilege bestowed by those in power.
I think this is a perspective encouraged by those in power. I think that a slightly different, but truer analysis is that our rights are always there, but often violated.
I think this is a perspective encouraged by those in power. I think that a slightly different, but truer analysis is that our rights are always there, but often violated.
That might have been true before the technological advance.
Now, I feel that the exceptions have become the norm and with each passing event, are creeping in every aspect of our lives. Turning it around - Our rights are always violated, we sometimes get to exercise them.
The very notion that you have something means that it can be taken away, unless like you said, you have the means to defend it. Contrast that with something you are, not have. That can only change, not taken away.
Now, I feel that the exceptions have become the norm and with each passing event, are creeping in every aspect of our lives. Turning it around - Our rights are always violated, we sometimes get to exercise them.
The very notion that you have something means that it can be taken away, unless like you said, you have the means to defend it. Contrast that with something you are, not have. That can only change, not taken away.
> Our rights are always there, but often violated.
That sounds like 18th-century thinking. In that era, "natural rights" seemed a reasonable notion because people could agree on the existence of a higher authority (even if it was a pretty aloof Deist-type God) that bestowed those rights inalienably on each and every person. But that idea has become increasingly discredited, and in the 19th century other schools arose with their positions that "rights" are merely an invention of human societies for the purposes of those societies.
That sounds like 18th-century thinking. In that era, "natural rights" seemed a reasonable notion because people could agree on the existence of a higher authority (even if it was a pretty aloof Deist-type God) that bestowed those rights inalienably on each and every person. But that idea has become increasingly discredited, and in the 19th century other schools arose with their positions that "rights" are merely an invention of human societies for the purposes of those societies.
A 'right' bestowed by society is no longer a right, but a privilege conditionally granted.
However, without a shared higher moral authority, I can claim whatever rights I want and you can't tell me otherwise. All you can do is forcibly remove my ability to freely exercise them, and all I can do is forcibly defend my ability to enjoy them. Hence the existence of the USA's second amendment.
However, without a shared higher moral authority, I can claim whatever rights I want and you can't tell me otherwise. All you can do is forcibly remove my ability to freely exercise them, and all I can do is forcibly defend my ability to enjoy them. Hence the existence of the USA's second amendment.
Individual liberty has to occasionally give way to collective good in modern society where the our way of life means most individuals cannot survive without some sort of centralized authority to maintain the systems that sustain modern life. This was true during middle age plagues where rulers had to centralize authority to maintain quarantines. It's true during wars and disaster. The issue is having a governance model that allows these exploitative but also circumstantially pro-social instruments to be retired during periods of serenity. The problem isn't specific to Trump. This is a wake up call to complacent voters who forget the importance of good governance.
The problem is that we're not dealing with "occasional" sacrifices to "some sort" of central authority. Since 9/11 we've been asked to surrender our rights by the truck load, and each new disaster seems to require ever more submission to an ever more powerful central state.
The pendulum has swung too far the other way.
The pendulum has swung too far the other way.
I think that there is no reason why contract tracing apps can't be designed with privacy in mind (in fact, several privacy experts agree on that) and that there is some danger of governments ignoring that (even though, at least in Europe, they should be bound by the GDPR and sometimes more stringent national laws).
But there are a lot of knee-jerk "but muh liberties" reactions in this thread and I think this is very dangerous, as it fails to see that sometimes individual rights must be weighed against each other.
But there are a lot of knee-jerk "but muh liberties" reactions in this thread and I think this is very dangerous, as it fails to see that sometimes individual rights must be weighed against each other.
The "but muh liberties" reactions are understandable in context increasing broken civic institutions compounded by various cultural factors. There's so much regression in various indicators aggregated over time that reforming governance seems impossible compared to preventing exploitation in the first place. But social upheavals like covid19 is the best opportunity for these reforms outside of war. In the mean time, I have no problem prioritizing contact tracing apps at all cost. But I have the benefit of a slightly more competent government, though I understand the general pessimism for those with understandably less faith.
My personal issue is the companies with ubiquitous presence to implement these changes (Apple & Google) has to negotiate US political environment. One on hand, having a near global solution seems preferable to fractured regional systems specially if we expect to resume global travel in the future. On the other hand, this is more global surveillance information at the hands of US government which... I'm sure they're eager to collect.
My personal issue is the companies with ubiquitous presence to implement these changes (Apple & Google) has to negotiate US political environment. One on hand, having a near global solution seems preferable to fractured regional systems specially if we expect to resume global travel in the future. On the other hand, this is more global surveillance information at the hands of US government which... I'm sure they're eager to collect.
I do understand skepticism towards the proposed solutions, but what I don't understand are statements like "my personal liberty is more valuable than the majority's right to live" (which I think is just an absurd stance to take in general), or people who have suggested that quarantine restrictions are fundamentally undermining personal liberty for no reason.
Having lived in dense Asian cities with collectivist culture it seems like a "no shit" position. Then you spend some time in a US suburb or even more rural areas where people "feel" more insulated from broader society and you can see how these thoughts in conjunction with individual exceptionalism take root. Feel being a key qualifier because these people who be just as fucked if the disease cannot be contained in urban areas just like urban areas would be fucked if their rural support system collapses, and for many countries if globalism collapses.
My current position is I can't see covid19 or any similarly infectious disease being contained without mass contact tracing / global medical monitoring technology, it's an emergent reality when globalized society confronts pandemics. The only things preventing this system prior was an absence of technology, so in some sense we are almost fortunate the outbreak is happening with our current capabilities. If covid19 happened instead of SARS 20 years ago, there wouldn't even be the technology to rapidly map the genome, roll out tests, or contact trace the way east Asian countries are doing to mitigate spread. This is the first time in human history where we have the opportunity deal with ongoing serious pandemic and perhaps implement resilient technical systems to prevent for future events without catastrophic social disruption. Covid19 is not going to be the last pandemic we see, billions of people in Asia and Africa are being uplifted through industrialization which means more opportunities for zoonotic diseases in the future.
My current position is I can't see covid19 or any similarly infectious disease being contained without mass contact tracing / global medical monitoring technology, it's an emergent reality when globalized society confronts pandemics. The only things preventing this system prior was an absence of technology, so in some sense we are almost fortunate the outbreak is happening with our current capabilities. If covid19 happened instead of SARS 20 years ago, there wouldn't even be the technology to rapidly map the genome, roll out tests, or contact trace the way east Asian countries are doing to mitigate spread. This is the first time in human history where we have the opportunity deal with ongoing serious pandemic and perhaps implement resilient technical systems to prevent for future events without catastrophic social disruption. Covid19 is not going to be the last pandemic we see, billions of people in Asia and Africa are being uplifted through industrialization which means more opportunities for zoonotic diseases in the future.
I have lived in both the cultures.
I don't believe mass contact tracing is essential to contain this pandemic. It is a trojan.
>> If covid19 happened instead of SARS 20 years ago, there wouldn't even be the technology ....
Again, just because we have the technology, it gets used, irrespective of whether is needed or useful.It is hilarious that we don't have technology/will to provide PPE for healthcare workers, masks for everyone but hey we can easily track everyone in the world. Talk about perverse optimizations.
And what is more, now, people are welcoming it !!
I don't believe mass contact tracing is essential to contain this pandemic. It is a trojan.
>> If covid19 happened instead of SARS 20 years ago, there wouldn't even be the technology ....
Again, just because we have the technology, it gets used, irrespective of whether is needed or useful.It is hilarious that we don't have technology/will to provide PPE for healthcare workers, masks for everyone but hey we can easily track everyone in the world. Talk about perverse optimizations.
And what is more, now, people are welcoming it !!
I think you raise a good point of how culture-dependent reactions to the virus are. Even if we're not as collectivist as much of Asia, Europe seems to be much more relaxed about temporarily giving up some "liberties" than the US.
Although it's noteworthy that data protection is also much stronger in Europe than in the US.
Although it's noteworthy that data protection is also much stronger in Europe than in the US.
Yeah, I think with respect to privacy, some Europeans have faith that they can claw back some lost protection via democratic process. Other places are justifiably more pessimistic.
I agree, I think some people in this thread need to slow down and think very carefully about what they are suggesting. Let's remember that America at least was founded not only liberty, but also on life and the pursuit of happiness. I agree that we should always stay vigilant against governments using crises to erode liberty, but at the same time we must also consider the public good in decision making. For example, we have broad freedom of speech protections but we do not allow people to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or make terroristic threats because we have decided that such actions overly encroach on the public's well being.
As this article correctly points out, we should be very concerned about contact tracing, and any contact tracing program needs to have broad privacy and legal protections built into it. What this article does not say is that there should never be any contact tracing for any reason because it has the potential to be abused which automatically outweighs any benefit to public good. Similarly, our stay at home orders should have termination dates based on transparent metrics, and we should be very careful about how we apply martial law. That being said, I find it not only ridiculous but enraging that people would advocate flaunting quarantine out of high level principle. You do not have the right to do harm to others by acting as a viral carrier. You do not have the right to endanger other people with your behavior. You do not have the right to get sick behind principle and then demand scarce hospital resources and provider time. I'm sorry but that is not reasonable, ethical, or in line with the principles our country is based on.
As this article correctly points out, we should be very concerned about contact tracing, and any contact tracing program needs to have broad privacy and legal protections built into it. What this article does not say is that there should never be any contact tracing for any reason because it has the potential to be abused which automatically outweighs any benefit to public good. Similarly, our stay at home orders should have termination dates based on transparent metrics, and we should be very careful about how we apply martial law. That being said, I find it not only ridiculous but enraging that people would advocate flaunting quarantine out of high level principle. You do not have the right to do harm to others by acting as a viral carrier. You do not have the right to endanger other people with your behavior. You do not have the right to get sick behind principle and then demand scarce hospital resources and provider time. I'm sorry but that is not reasonable, ethical, or in line with the principles our country is based on.
There's a lot of knee-jerk "I trust muh government", which is very naive.
Bound by the GDPR? Really? People here are giving out advice like a smart high school student who thinks he knows everything because he has read about it.
The real world does not work that way.
Bound by the GDPR? Really? People here are giving out advice like a smart high school student who thinks he knows everything because he has read about it.
The real world does not work that way.
At no point in my post did I say "I trust my government".
If you have any specific criticism, in particular about why you think the GDPR doesn't matter and why "the real world" works differently, I'd be happy to hear it.
If you have any specific criticism, in particular about why you think the GDPR doesn't matter and why "the real world" works differently, I'd be happy to hear it.
I'm even more terrified by what's going on at the not-so-virtual level. In Poland, where I come from they have been exercising a crawling coup d'état and turning the country into a police state. They passed laws that go directly against the constitution, they refuse to postpone presidential elections in early May and they started terrorising whole communities with overwhelming police harassment.
They event chose to give a raise to the police and not the healthcare workers.
I only hope the EU steps in soon or we'll see Poland drifting towards an authoritarian regime
They event chose to give a raise to the police and not the healthcare workers.
I only hope the EU steps in soon or we'll see Poland drifting towards an authoritarian regime
In Germany, a lawyer who called for a demonstration against the curfew first had her website taken down and has been put into psychiatry now (no English link, the Welt is decently reputable):
https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article207246011/Heidelberg-...
https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article207246011/Heidelberg-...
That's true, but it could easily be misunderstood as if policy debate and opposition to government in Germany is being curbed, and inconvenient voices being suppressed. That's not true.
First, the measures in Germany are of course vigorously debated, and legal challenges are going ahead.
Second, that particular lawyer has declared all measures against the COVID-19 unconstitutional and has unilaterally "revoked" them on her website. She then became paranoid when there was a car parked near her house for a long time, hid behind cars, and asked passers-by to call the police, declaring herself to be "Public Enemy #1".
First, the measures in Germany are of course vigorously debated, and legal challenges are going ahead.
Second, that particular lawyer has declared all measures against the COVID-19 unconstitutional and has unilaterally "revoked" them on her website. She then became paranoid when there was a car parked near her house for a long time, hid behind cars, and asked passers-by to call the police, declaring herself to be "Public Enemy #1".
Listening to her talk about her experience ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_OjhG5hFhc )
- she may or may not be generally paranoid, I would not be surprised either way
- she called the police because she felt surveilled and pursued
- her initial treatment by the police is really inappropriate if it happened as she describes (being cuffed behind her back on the ground, being pushed onto the floor in the psychiatric clinic headfirst) and I still would not be surprised if it happened that way
- I would not be surprised if this is unfortunately 'normal' for police encountering who they think of as a 'confused' person
- Aside from the way she described being treated by the police her experience might(!) be reasonable treatment for a person suspected of being paranoid with potential future self-harm. I do not know how this diagnosis is determined and whether it is accurate in this case.
- she seems very focused on herself and a conspiracy, talking about how 'of course' each of the police and the doctor/psychiatrists and everyone in Germany and everyone in the world knows her (I did not know of her for one), and that the receiving doctor/psychiatrist took ten minutes to arrive as he/she still had to receive orders 'from the top'
- the strongest indicator for being paranoid is that she states that the people in Germany and this world should wake up to this fake pandemic, which is orchestrated and that not a single person has died yet in Germany. The sincerity with which she states this reminds me of other conspiracy theorists on the far right.
- she may or may not be generally paranoid, I would not be surprised either way
- she called the police because she felt surveilled and pursued
- her initial treatment by the police is really inappropriate if it happened as she describes (being cuffed behind her back on the ground, being pushed onto the floor in the psychiatric clinic headfirst) and I still would not be surprised if it happened that way
- I would not be surprised if this is unfortunately 'normal' for police encountering who they think of as a 'confused' person
- Aside from the way she described being treated by the police her experience might(!) be reasonable treatment for a person suspected of being paranoid with potential future self-harm. I do not know how this diagnosis is determined and whether it is accurate in this case.
- she seems very focused on herself and a conspiracy, talking about how 'of course' each of the police and the doctor/psychiatrists and everyone in Germany and everyone in the world knows her (I did not know of her for one), and that the receiving doctor/psychiatrist took ten minutes to arrive as he/she still had to receive orders 'from the top'
- the strongest indicator for being paranoid is that she states that the people in Germany and this world should wake up to this fake pandemic, which is orchestrated and that not a single person has died yet in Germany. The sincerity with which she states this reminds me of other conspiracy theorists on the far right.
Thank you for your reply, I was really confused that what happened to her was because of her asking for a demonstration. I asked a German friend to read up on it but I don't think that is necessary anymore. :)
Do you think involuntary psychiatric committment and forced drugging is a reasonable reaction by the government to a protester/activist who is paranoid about surveillance in an age of ubiquitous surveillance?
> Do you think involuntary psychiatric committment and forced drugging is a reasonable reaction by the government to a protester/activist who is paranoid about surveillance in an age of ubiquitous surveillance?
Yes. She might have followers, you know.
Yes. She might have followers, you know.
[deleted]
The USSR believed the same thing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatr...
Yes, it's a perfectly reasonable backdoor to discredit, shut up and punish troublemakers without involving courts, which have tend to have tedious rules about things like "evidence of wrongdoing," "habeas corpus" and peoples' "rights."
After all, government knows best. This is not normal times; in this crisis, citizens' lives are at stake, so the government should be able to do anything, as long as they loudly claim their intentions are pure. Anyone who opposes the government isn't a criminal, because that would guarantee them some due process; they're an insane person who needs to be involuntarily treated. For their own good, of course.
/s
After all, government knows best. This is not normal times; in this crisis, citizens' lives are at stake, so the government should be able to do anything, as long as they loudly claim their intentions are pure. Anyone who opposes the government isn't a criminal, because that would guarantee them some due process; they're an insane person who needs to be involuntarily treated. For their own good, of course.
/s
Do you know the German legal system? The authorities may be able to put a person in a psychiatric facility for a short time (even then requiring a medical doctor to sign off on it), but afterwards, the local court is immediately involved. I don't know if the measure was warranted in this particular case, but your assertion isn't right: there are lots of people criticising the government and they don't all get locked up.
"Policy debate and opposition to government" is never curbed, it gives the population the feeling that they accomplish something with discussions.
Actually doing something is curbed in many ways.
> unilaterally "revoked" them on her website.
So what, that's like Stallman redefining terms. Hardly a cause for concern, I wonder if some readers are mentally unstable if they take that seriously.
> declaring herself to be "Public Enemy #1"
If your website is shut down, why would you not get anxious?
The whole thing is an overreaction.
Actually doing something is curbed in many ways.
> unilaterally "revoked" them on her website.
So what, that's like Stallman redefining terms. Hardly a cause for concern, I wonder if some readers are mentally unstable if they take that seriously.
> declaring herself to be "Public Enemy #1"
If your website is shut down, why would you not get anxious?
The whole thing is an overreaction.
You can do lots of things, e.g. stage an online protest, sign petitions, vote for different parties in the next elections (and it's not as if you don't have a choice; compared to the US with its two-party system, you can really pick your favourites in Germany), call your representatives, join a political party or create a new one, sue the government, ...
What you can't do is unilaterally decide that you don't like a law and ignore it. Asking other people to gather outside for a demonstration when this kind of action is currently disallowed is incitement and therefore illegal.
As others have said, debates around the current measures are allowed and happening. Several parties have already filed lawsuits. In all cases that I know of, the constitutional court has rejected the preliminary injunctions. This means that, while the constitutional court may still decide in the future that the laws were anti-constitutional, they have decided that the harm to the individual due to these laws does not outweigh the harm of these laws not being enforced _were_ they constitutional.
As to whether they needed to shut down the web site or whether that is actually legal: I don't know. But the police, especially local police, sometimes does things of questionable legality, as in every country. Of course, you can always sue the police and demand that your website be restored, and then the courts will examine your arguments. It's not a perfect system (no system is), but you do have legal options.
What you can't do is unilaterally decide that you don't like a law and ignore it. Asking other people to gather outside for a demonstration when this kind of action is currently disallowed is incitement and therefore illegal.
As others have said, debates around the current measures are allowed and happening. Several parties have already filed lawsuits. In all cases that I know of, the constitutional court has rejected the preliminary injunctions. This means that, while the constitutional court may still decide in the future that the laws were anti-constitutional, they have decided that the harm to the individual due to these laws does not outweigh the harm of these laws not being enforced _were_ they constitutional.
As to whether they needed to shut down the web site or whether that is actually legal: I don't know. But the police, especially local police, sometimes does things of questionable legality, as in every country. Of course, you can always sue the police and demand that your website be restored, and then the courts will examine your arguments. It's not a perfect system (no system is), but you do have legal options.
No one cares about online protests or petitions, please.
The majority of Germans is against the television protection money. You have to pay this protection money even if you do not own a television, or else you'll be thrown in debtor's prison and your credit score is ruined.
The protection money ruled "constitutional" by the Verfassungsgericht. That is how democracy works.
So, since you are so informed: What should I do? Found my own party, vote AfD? Neither of these is an actual option for me.
The majority of Germans is against the television protection money. You have to pay this protection money even if you do not own a television, or else you'll be thrown in debtor's prison and your credit score is ruined.
The protection money ruled "constitutional" by the Verfassungsgericht. That is how democracy works.
So, since you are so informed: What should I do? Found my own party, vote AfD? Neither of these is an actual option for me.
I don't think you understand how representative democracy works. It very well may be that the majority of the people rejects the Rundfunkbeitrag. But it clearly isn't very important to those people, otherwise they would create a single-issue party and vote that party in. In a representative democracy, people decide what party or candidate represents them best and vote for them. Nobody expects to be asked about every issue.
If you want to change that, you could move to Switzerland, where voters actually do regularly vote on issues, but be warned, that that system comes with its own set of disadvantages. Also noteworthy: the Swiss people recently voted on whether to keep the equivalent of the Rundfunkgebühr, and they overwhelmingly said yes, as soon as they realised how much they would otherwise lose; you see, it's one thing to claim you're against something when asked randomly during some survey, it's another to actually go and vote against it once you know your opinion matters and you've had some time reviewing the pros and cons.
By the way, I don't own a car and I still have to pay money for streets; I don't have children and have to pay for school; and I've never received unemployment benefits, yet have to pay for it. I don't complain about any of that because I think having public goods is a good thing.
You've asked me what I think you should do. I've outlined a lot of things in my previous post. That none of these is an "actual option" for you or that you think people won't care about your cause is not a failure of democracy. Nobody ever said that change is easy.
If you want to change that, you could move to Switzerland, where voters actually do regularly vote on issues, but be warned, that that system comes with its own set of disadvantages. Also noteworthy: the Swiss people recently voted on whether to keep the equivalent of the Rundfunkgebühr, and they overwhelmingly said yes, as soon as they realised how much they would otherwise lose; you see, it's one thing to claim you're against something when asked randomly during some survey, it's another to actually go and vote against it once you know your opinion matters and you've had some time reviewing the pros and cons.
By the way, I don't own a car and I still have to pay money for streets; I don't have children and have to pay for school; and I've never received unemployment benefits, yet have to pay for it. I don't complain about any of that because I think having public goods is a good thing.
You've asked me what I think you should do. I've outlined a lot of things in my previous post. That none of these is an "actual option" for you or that you think people won't care about your cause is not a failure of democracy. Nobody ever said that change is easy.
[deleted]
Counter argument: The website takedown was temporary, in the psychiatry she has access to her mobile phone, police issued press releases. She reports in the psychiatry she's safe from 'dark forces' (https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_87699240/...). I wouldn't rule out that indeed she suffers persecution mania.
EU can't do much.
Poland (radical right government) and Hungary (far right government) have a pact where they veto any EU actions against one of them.
Members of EU are sovereign states. I think kicking them out of the union is only way to proceed if their system does not fit into the EU anymore.
Poland (radical right government) and Hungary (far right government) have a pact where they veto any EU actions against one of them.
Members of EU are sovereign states. I think kicking them out of the union is only way to proceed if their system does not fit into the EU anymore.
It's not a matter of left and right.
The Italian government is allegedly markedly left, and locked a lot of people in their homes with two administrative acts (no action from the Parliament for many weeks), has made a government commission against fake news on the epidemic (with outside journalists, but it still smells like a Ministry of Truth), and is using quite a bit of pressure to keep people in their homes (nothing violent, but a presence and controls by the police far higher than normal). Regional governments of any sides are following up in the same manner up to threatening arrest if you are walking out if you don't have a documented reason.
Oh, and the Parliament is essentially shut down, and so the judicial system for the most part: everyone is too afraid of death.
Also the way they address Italians, like parents scolding children, is unbearable. The population is made up of citizens, not loyal subjects.
Simply put, as far as I can see the current pandemic has brought out the worst authoritarianism from all political sides.
The Italian government is allegedly markedly left, and locked a lot of people in their homes with two administrative acts (no action from the Parliament for many weeks), has made a government commission against fake news on the epidemic (with outside journalists, but it still smells like a Ministry of Truth), and is using quite a bit of pressure to keep people in their homes (nothing violent, but a presence and controls by the police far higher than normal). Regional governments of any sides are following up in the same manner up to threatening arrest if you are walking out if you don't have a documented reason.
Oh, and the Parliament is essentially shut down, and so the judicial system for the most part: everyone is too afraid of death.
Also the way they address Italians, like parents scolding children, is unbearable. The population is made up of citizens, not loyal subjects.
Simply put, as far as I can see the current pandemic has brought out the worst authoritarianism from all political sides.
> like parents scolding children, is unbearable. The population is made up of citizens, not loyal subjects.
Populations are made of children citizens. Italy voted Berlusconi into power multiple times.
I'm strong supporter democracy but the idea that voters are "adults" does not hold water. You need the mechanisms of liberal democracy and institutional processes for any resemblance of rationality to emerge from democratic process. Democracy is inherently dangerous.
Populations are made of children citizens. Italy voted Berlusconi into power multiple times.
I'm strong supporter democracy but the idea that voters are "adults" does not hold water. You need the mechanisms of liberal democracy and institutional processes for any resemblance of rationality to emerge from democratic process. Democracy is inherently dangerous.
Isn't that just a fancy way to say "you need experts to make the decisions and the populace to believe they are in charge"?
> I'm strong supporter democracy but the idea that voters are "adults" does not hold water.
People are indeed capable of acting irrationally. But they're still citizens and not subjects of the government, which is still accountable to them (for the good and the bad), or should be, at least.
This specific government acts in bad faith, far more than what can be considered tolerable (and the meaning for the choices made is lost completely).
People are indeed capable of acting irrationally. But they're still citizens and not subjects of the government, which is still accountable to them (for the good and the bad), or should be, at least.
This specific government acts in bad faith, far more than what can be considered tolerable (and the meaning for the choices made is lost completely).
> the idea that voters are "adults" does not hold water
Speak for yourself.
Speak for yourself.
"Poland (radical right government) and Hungary (far right government) have a pact where they veto any EU actions against one of them."
Same will happen in Italy in a few years.
"I think kicking them out of the union is only way to proceed if their system does not fit into the EU anymore."
To keep the EU clean, yes, but it won't accomplish anything locally: far right governments would actually love to get out of the European Union so they can do their nasty stuff unsupervised.
Same will happen in Italy in a few years.
"I think kicking them out of the union is only way to proceed if their system does not fit into the EU anymore."
To keep the EU clean, yes, but it won't accomplish anything locally: far right governments would actually love to get out of the European Union so they can do their nasty stuff unsupervised.
But if they are allowed to stay, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Realistically, they will stay.
Also a good point.
> To keep the EU clean, yes, but it won't accomplish anything locally
It's not EUs job to do that.
There is genuine grassroots support for illiberal government in both countries. People in these countries are divided and have to fight it out among themselves. The responsibility is to upkeep liberal democracy is in the hands of the people.
It's not EUs job to do that.
There is genuine grassroots support for illiberal government in both countries. People in these countries are divided and have to fight it out among themselves. The responsibility is to upkeep liberal democracy is in the hands of the people.
This statement is absurd and counter to the entire basis of modern european union law.
For a country to be eligble for EU membership, it has to be a democracy and be a signatory of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and acknowledge the legitimacy of the european court of human rights and European Court of Justice.
While the ECHR is not a EU institution, it is a cornerstone of european diplomacy both inside and outside the union.
[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/human-rights_en
For a country to be eligble for EU membership, it has to be a democracy and be a signatory of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and acknowledge the legitimacy of the european court of human rights and European Court of Justice.
While the ECHR is not a EU institution, it is a cornerstone of european diplomacy both inside and outside the union.
[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/human-rights_en
I'm going on a tangent here, buy I'm curious as to what would happen if they did kick them out. Could those nations just print euro-denominated debt in anticipation and then switch currencies once out? I
The EU is not going to intervene in domestic sovereignty. The human rights violations would have to get extremely severe for that to happen, and I don't think there are explicit clauses in the treaties about it. That is a particular Rubicon they are not willing to cross.
(or in this case, the checks map Oder)
(or in this case, the checks map Oder)
I think the EU could theoretically kick them out, also there are some other kind of sanctions mentioned re Hungary which could be used but I don't remember which ones.
On what grounds should they be kicked out? For people in those countries not voting according to the preferences of the Swedish media?
On the grounds of article 7, referencing article 2, of the Treaty on European Union (this is basically the constitution of the EU).
For violating their treaty obligations, which includes adherence to human rights, which includes democratic accountability and rule of law.
(I’m simplifying, of course; I’m no lawyer).
(I’m simplifying, of course; I’m no lawyer).
The EU is not going to come rescue you. The far right government is winning landslide election victories and is immensely popular with the electorate. What should the EU do?
You can either be an activist and do something to convince your fellow citizens - or - enjoy (the hopefully soon to be reestablished) freedom of movement in the EU, move to a proper democracy and vote with your feet.
You can either be an activist and do something to convince your fellow citizens - or - enjoy (the hopefully soon to be reestablished) freedom of movement in the EU, move to a proper democracy and vote with your feet.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Thomas_Binder/status/124906941282...
That was in Switzerland. The doctor [1] has a history of challenging establishment narratives and was previously arrested in conjunction with the chemical attacks in Syria.
I have read second hand accounts that assert that he was arrested, taken to a mental hospital, and has been released.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Binder2
That was in Switzerland. The doctor [1] has a history of challenging establishment narratives and was previously arrested in conjunction with the chemical attacks in Syria.
I have read second hand accounts that assert that he was arrested, taken to a mental hospital, and has been released.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Binder2
It doesn't further your cause that you present your point of view as a widely agreed-upon truth. Last time I checked, the government in Poland enjoyed a wide support of a majority of the population.
If I might, digital surveillance technologies cannot actually help fight the pandemic. It's a fantasy. What can hep are masks, medicines and good hygiene practices. Everything else is only the use of shock doctrine to push old agendas. If you're interested, that's what I argued in the French newspaper Liberation:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...
Well, at least this one study seems to conclude that surveillance can in fact help: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/09/scie...
I seem to have heard that there were other studies concluding similar things, but can't find another one right now.
Even privacy advocates have argued that apps can, if developed well, be useful if developed with privacy in mind. See the link by the CCC or this post by Linus Neumann, who is affiliated with the CCC (only in German, unfortunately): https://linus-neumann.de/2020/03/corona-apps-sinn-und-unsinn...
Even privacy advocates have argued that apps can, if developed well, be useful if developed with privacy in mind. See the link by the CCC or this post by Linus Neumann, who is affiliated with the CCC (only in German, unfortunately): https://linus-neumann.de/2020/03/corona-apps-sinn-und-unsinn...
Sadly, effective response to infectious disease throughout history have all added to the authoritarian toolbox to necessarily limit individual freedom because we know individual responsibility does not scale. While individual irresponsibly at scale has calamitous consequences in context of infectious disease. Cordon sanitaire / quarantines in response to disease outbreaks have been the impetus for consolidation of government power. Historically this has been coarse geographic control where regions are locked down or movement of people is restricted for months to years - 160 years between Austria and Ottoman empire. Much like the total shutdown of countries we're seeing now that refuse to adopt more granular control enabled by surveillance technology. Sacrificing privacy to manage individual affects on collective risk is going to be an inevitable component of modern life moving forward if we want to return to any semblance of the old "normal". A normal where most people did not care much about privacy either.
When you say cannot actually help fight the pandemic do you have any reason to believe they won't work from a scientific point of view?
Sorry if I have missed it, but to me your arguments were privacy issues and the technical difficulties (different platforms, Support) to get an app on enough smartphones to reach the critical number of participants. Don't get me wrong I totally agree, these are things that we first need to find a solution. But your post sounded to me like you have the opinion that contact tracing doesn't work.
Sorry if I have missed it, but to me your arguments were privacy issues and the technical difficulties (different platforms, Support) to get an app on enough smartphones to reach the critical number of participants. Don't get me wrong I totally agree, these are things that we first need to find a solution. But your post sounded to me like you have the opinion that contact tracing doesn't work.
What about this study? https://science.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.ab...
sadly, it doesn't matter whether you're right (in a rational-technical sense from a engineering perspective).
Fear makes more people react emotionally.
Fear makes more people react emotionally.
The good news is that we do not have to sacrifice our (digital) human rights to fight the virus. I was recently made aware of a really simple but effective way of tracking infections without storing data centrally or using positional information (GPS): https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/
That's correct. DP3T documents and code here: https://github.com/DP-3T/
It’s really interesting tech, and a great group of people behind it. But the government doesn’t care for this nuance of what is privacy preserving tech and what is not. For now, maybe at the beginning, privacy will be emphasized. But the important part is conditioning citizens to be okay with the underlying idea of technology assisted self-surveillance, and compliance with notifications on their phone telling them to stay inside. Eventually people will forget about the underlying details and privacy will be deemphasized.
“You were okay with TrackingApp 1.0, why wouldn’t you be okay with TrackingApp 2.0?”
If we give an inch now, will the government take a mile later?
Btw, it’s worth noting that last night in his press conference, Trump was asked about contact tracing apps. He emphasized that people are worried about constitutional implications. Personally, that’s refreshing for me, and seems to distinguish him from the Bush/Cheney era pushing of the Patriot Act, or Obama’s use of dragnet surveillance and secret FISA courts.
“You were okay with TrackingApp 1.0, why wouldn’t you be okay with TrackingApp 2.0?”
If we give an inch now, will the government take a mile later?
Btw, it’s worth noting that last night in his press conference, Trump was asked about contact tracing apps. He emphasized that people are worried about constitutional implications. Personally, that’s refreshing for me, and seems to distinguish him from the Bush/Cheney era pushing of the Patriot Act, or Obama’s use of dragnet surveillance and secret FISA courts.
If we give an inch now, the government will absolutely take a mile later.
From the perspective of the centralized government, it's a race to the bottom with privacy rights and you know what famous racer D. Toretto said about races...
"It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning's winning."
From the perspective of the centralized government, it's a race to the bottom with privacy rights and you know what famous racer D. Toretto said about races...
"It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning's winning."
Also very interessting to read through the issues of the project
"""and the first human right is the right to live.
therefore, so that we all may live on, you must give up your privacy.
It's only so that the appropriate authorities may tack down anybody you may have contacted; and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be quarantined. And frankly they might die, but we do this merely so that the rest of us may live on peacefully and prosper."""
e.g. take this 'and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be quarantined' and swap it out for another historical age statement such as a classic inquisition era "if found to be sinner/heretics/non-believers the church will help them repent" though, in the inquisition era there was no comparable surveillance technology.
I just wrote this, but I am not sure whether I agree. I am conflicted.
edit: after editing in the inquisiton example, I realized that I disagree (with many reservations) with the entire sentiment of initial triple-quote.
therefore, so that we all may live on, you must give up your privacy.
It's only so that the appropriate authorities may tack down anybody you may have contacted; and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be quarantined. And frankly they might die, but we do this merely so that the rest of us may live on peacefully and prosper."""
e.g. take this 'and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be quarantined' and swap it out for another historical age statement such as a classic inquisition era "if found to be sinner/heretics/non-believers the church will help them repent" though, in the inquisition era there was no comparable surveillance technology.
I just wrote this, but I am not sure whether I agree. I am conflicted.
edit: after editing in the inquisiton example, I realized that I disagree (with many reservations) with the entire sentiment of initial triple-quote.
I don't think this is true, the first human right is the right to die, and secondly the right to live.
So you can only live a life that allows you to die.
For example, if my mother is in a hospital dying from corona, and the system forbids me to see her (despite me taking precautions that I deem fit), I must revolt.
This of course sounds like nonsense, and I am also conflicted, but this is my intuition.
For example, if my mother is in a hospital dying from corona, and the system forbids me to see her (despite me taking precautions that I deem fit), I must revolt.
This of course sounds like nonsense, and I am also conflicted, but this is my intuition.
I was recently hospitalized for a suicide attempt due to years of chronic pain and depression as a result. I was not allowed to die. I get no help to live after being dumped back out when "stable" medically. I was not allowed any visitors due to the virus and it was very detrimental to my mental health. Now I am here alone trying to piece together a future. Nobody revolted...and I am powerless to. Frustrates me so much there wasn't help to live...but I am told I have to. Trapped in a room with no doors or windows and on fire. I don't see this "help" everyone says there is to get. Just people wanting thousands of dollars from me that I cannot pay for nonsense.
That's tough to hear. I've been close to such a situation, but managed to recover after a move across half the country (and self-medication). I imagine there must be some service you can call, to talk to someone who actually cares. I wish you strength in reaching out and getting through somehow.
But life and death are not really that separated.
To die is, after all, part of life. There cannot be one without the other. Thus (logcially?) the right to live is equivalent to the right to die.
To die is, after all, part of life. There cannot be one without the other. Thus (logcially?) the right to live is equivalent to the right to die.
Sadly not holding my breath for this to happen in America. After they tracked those spring breaker cell phones with ease, I’m afraid human rights are already being trampled.
Proportionate response isn't trampling.
Edit: I should flesh this out a bit further.
In hindsight, cellphone data should have augmented contact tracing rather than just sitting on the sidelines and drawing maps a week later. In my opinion there is a time and place to wield technological power when there is a collective need. Ethicists can argue where the line is drawn but an existential threat to 2% of the infected seems sufficient, especially given how fast a pandemic spreads.
Edit: I should flesh this out a bit further.
In hindsight, cellphone data should have augmented contact tracing rather than just sitting on the sidelines and drawing maps a week later. In my opinion there is a time and place to wield technological power when there is a collective need. Ethicists can argue where the line is drawn but an existential threat to 2% of the infected seems sufficient, especially given how fast a pandemic spreads.
This kind of opinion is predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint. I.e., it's okay to do wrong to a small number of people if it benefits the overwhelming majority of people.
There are plenty of other ethical approaches, many of which would say that the upholding of certain rights is more important than any benefits gained from violating them.
There are plenty of other ethical approaches, many of which would say that the upholding of certain rights is more important than any benefits gained from violating them.
To concur:
It's not merely predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint, it assumes that we've accurately accounted for costs of the options (eg, second and third order effects) when deciding rather than merely justifying our preferences with biased models.
Empirically, the second (biased models) happens considerably more often than the first (accurate accounting) -- to the point that even if you're a utilitarian, you have to admit it doesn't work in practice. You simply can't make the required benefit calculations for utilitarianism.
This is something businesses get wrong a lot: their numerical justification is actually a reflection of the biases of their staff, rather than an accurate accounting of the options.
It's not merely predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint, it assumes that we've accurately accounted for costs of the options (eg, second and third order effects) when deciding rather than merely justifying our preferences with biased models.
Empirically, the second (biased models) happens considerably more often than the first (accurate accounting) -- to the point that even if you're a utilitarian, you have to admit it doesn't work in practice. You simply can't make the required benefit calculations for utilitarianism.
This is something businesses get wrong a lot: their numerical justification is actually a reflection of the biases of their staff, rather than an accurate accounting of the options.
The counterpoint to this is that you can't just wait forever before making a decision. At some point, you'll have to do with imprecise data, and for a pandemic that is developing very rapidly, you can't just sit back and do nothing (well you can, but then you have to make an argument for why this is a good option).
As to the point of whether utilitarianism is a good ethical framework... well, at least no non-consequentialist ethical framework has ever convinced me. A naïve reading of utilitarianism has its problems, of course, but those can be accounted for; but the classical Kantian conundrum of not being allowed to lie to a murderer seems silly to me. Plus saying "principles matter" has just as many problems as the utilitarian approach, as nobody will be able to agree on those principles.
As to the point of whether utilitarianism is a good ethical framework... well, at least no non-consequentialist ethical framework has ever convinced me. A naïve reading of utilitarianism has its problems, of course, but those can be accounted for; but the classical Kantian conundrum of not being allowed to lie to a murderer seems silly to me. Plus saying "principles matter" has just as many problems as the utilitarian approach, as nobody will be able to agree on those principles.
Your edit is worth debating, though I doubt there's an easy way to settle the argument between ethical concerns and the efficacy of tracking at phone cell granularity. Most of what I've read in that regard didn't really indicate that particular technological capability makes more sense than an overall lockdown since it can hardly be called targeted.
For further context: The example you replied to references this data in the hands of advertisers, with extremely questionable claims about their pseudo anonymization. That just made your comment before the edit less sensible. I believe such a debate might make sense at the level of a government agency, private entities exchanging that data is just a ridiculous idea.
For further context: The example you replied to references this data in the hands of advertisers, with extremely questionable claims about their pseudo anonymization. That just made your comment before the edit less sensible. I believe such a debate might make sense at the level of a government agency, private entities exchanging that data is just a ridiculous idea.
Contact tracing via technology doesn't have to be via phone towers or anything like that (I agree those have little value outside of the aggregate). Anonymous tracking solutions via bluetooth that are much more are actively being developed and have also been advocated for by people affiliated with the CCC (as well as epidemiologists).
I didn't mean to imply that it did, the example this thread built on was just one of cell based tracking.
If everything else in American politics and government execution worked smoothly and some extra cell phone tracking could have unwrinkled the last wrinkles, I'd maybe give your argument consideration.
As it currently stands, getting cell phone data would be like polishing the door knobs while your basement is flooded. There are bigger fish to fry, lower fruits to pick etc etc.
As it currently stands, getting cell phone data would be like polishing the door knobs while your basement is flooded. There are bigger fish to fry, lower fruits to pick etc etc.
When such things are done to maintain the human right to live then information freedom will take second place in priorities. Yes that sounds dramatic, but is the context that is being overlooked here.
Should it be opt-in, should it be opt-out. Well I'm already aware of people who go out and leave their mobile at home, so you could ask that those this is going to need to target will not be targetable.
Should it be opt-in, should it be opt-out. Well I'm already aware of people who go out and leave their mobile at home, so you could ask that those this is going to need to target will not be targetable.
I am keeping an eye on digital passports that may be needed to go grocery shopping, or just go to the park. It's plausible that you will be required to carry your phone, or some kind of digital ID device to check into these places.
We are already hearing about immunity passports. I don't want to sound like a nut case, but I can see that once we have this sort of thing as commonplace to deal with Covid it will be expanded and never withdrawn. The phrase "the new normal" is starting to pop up, and I find that terrifying. I am already mourning the life we enjoyed just months ago.
We are already hearing about immunity passports. I don't want to sound like a nut case, but I can see that once we have this sort of thing as commonplace to deal with Covid it will be expanded and never withdrawn. The phrase "the new normal" is starting to pop up, and I find that terrifying. I am already mourning the life we enjoyed just months ago.
This is exactly correct, and half of the population (at least in America) is sitting here and begging the government to take away more of their freedom so they can feel safer.
I am terrified of what the future holds.
I am terrified of what the future holds.
There is zero doubt in my mind life will never, ever be the same again. We've seen this by example of 9/11. That was one tragic day and daily life changed forever.
So many people are looking forward to getting out of lockdown and resuming their lives. I don't think those lives exist any more, and they will not return to us. Whatever is on the other side of this isn't what we had before.
So many people are looking forward to getting out of lockdown and resuming their lives. I don't think those lives exist any more, and they will not return to us. Whatever is on the other side of this isn't what we had before.
Interesting perspective. In what ways do you think our lives will be changed forever ?
Well, after the last war, many countries had conscription to bolster their armies and to have resources better prepared if there was one again.
So I would not be supprised and indeed would welcome countries doing Medical conscription and if you raise up whole generations who have done even a few weeks of medical training and with that, raise the basic level of health and first aid knowledge. That alone would make things better, would reduce those needing to go to the doctor and in the UK with a free access public health service, you cut down on people attending A&E and Doctors with silly issues that would be 101 first aid and basic knowledge treatable or preventable.
But that is just one whole area.
Food packaging, will change and maybe not in a good way. Early on we saw coffee outlets refuse to use reusable cups for fears of contamination. We have gone from the verge of lambasting individual fruits wrapped in plastic towards one that demands it almost.
Be so many ways things will change, directly and more so indirectly.
But not all bad, many people got to talk to neibours they never met, via windows a sense of community and shared issues and cohesion will be much better after this.
Though high-streets already suffering from online advantages, may well of seen the killer blow from this.
Also business wise, it will see many rethink business models and how they operate. Some will diversify, some change direction, some fold and new ones will spring out.
Back in the 70's in the UK we had milk delivered daily in glass bottles via electric vehicles. Over time that died out and plastic bottles from supermarkets being the main.
We may well see a return of such services and certainly for daily consumables like milk, fruit veg, bread. We will see an increase in companies offering that now as the demand and mentality for that demand after this all, will still be there.
Biggest one though, will be more companies open to flexible hours and working from home, which is great.
So I would not be supprised and indeed would welcome countries doing Medical conscription and if you raise up whole generations who have done even a few weeks of medical training and with that, raise the basic level of health and first aid knowledge. That alone would make things better, would reduce those needing to go to the doctor and in the UK with a free access public health service, you cut down on people attending A&E and Doctors with silly issues that would be 101 first aid and basic knowledge treatable or preventable.
But that is just one whole area.
Food packaging, will change and maybe not in a good way. Early on we saw coffee outlets refuse to use reusable cups for fears of contamination. We have gone from the verge of lambasting individual fruits wrapped in plastic towards one that demands it almost.
Be so many ways things will change, directly and more so indirectly.
But not all bad, many people got to talk to neibours they never met, via windows a sense of community and shared issues and cohesion will be much better after this.
Though high-streets already suffering from online advantages, may well of seen the killer blow from this.
Also business wise, it will see many rethink business models and how they operate. Some will diversify, some change direction, some fold and new ones will spring out.
Back in the 70's in the UK we had milk delivered daily in glass bottles via electric vehicles. Over time that died out and plastic bottles from supermarkets being the main.
We may well see a return of such services and certainly for daily consumables like milk, fruit veg, bread. We will see an increase in companies offering that now as the demand and mentality for that demand after this all, will still be there.
Biggest one though, will be more companies open to flexible hours and working from home, which is great.
Yeah, it doesn't necessarily have to be all negative ! Thanks for sharing your point of view :)
Well, like I said we will more than likely have some kind of bio passport. Initially it will be to validate immunity but under the threat of more pandemics (general stance is certainly going to be 'this can never happen again') I can see how this will become a normal thing. Certainly won't be able to fly without some kind of added bio security.
New vaccinations may become legally mandated. I can see a big backlash on this, but people will socially shame others into complying with the new norm. I mean, the anti-vax movement has ruined anyone's ability to even attempt to challenge vaccinations. This is worrying because there can be legit dialogs that need to be had around any new medication that is rushed to market. History has shown that vaccines can give cause for concern[1].
Then there is the drive for nationalism. Nations will want to secure their supply chains which could lead to tightening of borders in many different ways.
Cash could disappear. Already it's being argued as being a vector for transmitting viruses. Many stores will not accept cash at the moment.
I don't know, I am sure I could go deep down the rabbit hole on this one. I obviously don't know how this is going to play out and it likely won't be as overtly dystopic as my imagination might lead me to think. However I do think once the dust has settled all the subtle changes will leave us a little shocked about how much we lost.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
New vaccinations may become legally mandated. I can see a big backlash on this, but people will socially shame others into complying with the new norm. I mean, the anti-vax movement has ruined anyone's ability to even attempt to challenge vaccinations. This is worrying because there can be legit dialogs that need to be had around any new medication that is rushed to market. History has shown that vaccines can give cause for concern[1].
Then there is the drive for nationalism. Nations will want to secure their supply chains which could lead to tightening of borders in many different ways.
Cash could disappear. Already it's being argued as being a vector for transmitting viruses. Many stores will not accept cash at the moment.
I don't know, I am sure I could go deep down the rabbit hole on this one. I obviously don't know how this is going to play out and it likely won't be as overtly dystopic as my imagination might lead me to think. However I do think once the dust has settled all the subtle changes will leave us a little shocked about how much we lost.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
Not sure, but commercial interests are getting a scent of curfew money as we speak. They'll be very creative.
I predict things will largely look the same as they did before within 1-2 years; at least in America. Hard to predict what'll happen in other countries.
There will probably be small changes (less handshaking, more acceptance of wearing masks when sick with anything, remote work somewhat more popular), but I don't think this is going to change American society in the way people think it will. Maybe healthcare reform and UBI will come sooner than they otherwise would've, but they're still far away.
There will probably be small changes (less handshaking, more acceptance of wearing masks when sick with anything, remote work somewhat more popular), but I don't think this is going to change American society in the way people think it will. Maybe healthcare reform and UBI will come sooner than they otherwise would've, but they're still far away.
>That was one tragic day and daily life changed forever.
I just disagree with this statement. After 9/11, flying got to be more of a pain in the ass, but for the other 99.9% of life, nothing really changed. More flags outside peoples' houses, maybe.
But what changed, appreciably for you? Because my life didn't really change, nor did anyone around me, from what I can tell.
I just disagree with this statement. After 9/11, flying got to be more of a pain in the ass, but for the other 99.9% of life, nothing really changed. More flags outside peoples' houses, maybe.
But what changed, appreciably for you? Because my life didn't really change, nor did anyone around me, from what I can tell.
The threat of terrorism changed politics forever[1]. The bar for military intervention was lowered significantly. The Patriot Act in the US by itself changed global life. Privacy diminished under the guise of keeping everyone safe. Airport security theatre is just a small visible part, but the attitude change toward monitoring the public is the most significant change. In the UK and the US[2] the number of CCTV cameras ballooned since 2001. We take surveillance for granted now, I guess you don't really think about that though.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/top-ten-abuses-power-911 [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44163852/ns/business-us_business/t...
[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/top-ten-abuses-power-911 [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44163852/ns/business-us_business/t...
>immunity passports
Yip, that may well become a thing and as we know, that could play out in many ways. How do you make sure people carry them. We happily allow our beloved pets to be chipped with tracking RFID chips. We freely already carry around our own personal RFID bank cards and mobile phones that with each advancement in radio tech alone allows better tracking from the radio aspect alone, let alone all the other smart features built into the radio/chipset.
Thing is we take those around with us with a choice, any immunity passports, would the same level of choice play out.
You can get 100 people, give them the choice to carry tracking and 99 of them will be happy to do that, yet if you told those 100 people they had to, well - there would be way less than 99 who would happily comply and that is when things get messy.
Hence many and much enforcement of lockdowns have been overall, softy softly. In the UK we had a soft lockdown for about a week and the results was not as good, so a more formalised lockdown transpired. Still, mostly softly softly of move along, move along now. But still, it only takes a few to ignore things for the line to be moved further for all.
So whatever is needed or done, will be a fine balance in PR with the people and would need clear, precise reasons and durations and full intent outlined. Hence most will be pushed as a choice and if you are offing people some extra level of freedom back during lockdowns, then those that take up even voluntarily will PR wise, work well. Also won't be the ones that you would want to track anyhow in most cases. Though if enough go for it, you start to get a sense of mandate to make it more formalised knowing that the majority have already signed up freely. That is when things may well get interesting concerns.
Yip, that may well become a thing and as we know, that could play out in many ways. How do you make sure people carry them. We happily allow our beloved pets to be chipped with tracking RFID chips. We freely already carry around our own personal RFID bank cards and mobile phones that with each advancement in radio tech alone allows better tracking from the radio aspect alone, let alone all the other smart features built into the radio/chipset.
Thing is we take those around with us with a choice, any immunity passports, would the same level of choice play out.
You can get 100 people, give them the choice to carry tracking and 99 of them will be happy to do that, yet if you told those 100 people they had to, well - there would be way less than 99 who would happily comply and that is when things get messy.
Hence many and much enforcement of lockdowns have been overall, softy softly. In the UK we had a soft lockdown for about a week and the results was not as good, so a more formalised lockdown transpired. Still, mostly softly softly of move along, move along now. But still, it only takes a few to ignore things for the line to be moved further for all.
So whatever is needed or done, will be a fine balance in PR with the people and would need clear, precise reasons and durations and full intent outlined. Hence most will be pushed as a choice and if you are offing people some extra level of freedom back during lockdowns, then those that take up even voluntarily will PR wise, work well. Also won't be the ones that you would want to track anyhow in most cases. Though if enough go for it, you start to get a sense of mandate to make it more formalised knowing that the majority have already signed up freely. That is when things may well get interesting concerns.
It will be interesting to see what hackers are going to come up with in the future to circumvent these new ways of social control.
In the long run political problems require political solutions. If you come up with a technical solution and said solution is adopted widely enough to matter the laws will be changed to render that technical solution irrelevant or illegal (not necessarily directly).
For example, the fact that you could make your own alcohol in all sorts of ways and that regular people had easy enough access to alcohol didn't render prohibition irrelevant. Organized crime ran rampant and federal law enforcement ran rampant after them until enough people agreed "yeah this is stupid, let's just make booze legal again" for there to be political will to repeal prohibition.
For example, the fact that you could make your own alcohol in all sorts of ways and that regular people had easy enough access to alcohol didn't render prohibition irrelevant. Organized crime ran rampant and federal law enforcement ran rampant after them until enough people agreed "yeah this is stupid, let's just make booze legal again" for there to be political will to repeal prohibition.
Yes, it is "opt-in" for anyone who wants a normal life. There will be a 'choice' of sorts, but I can't see how someone opting out could function in the "new world" the MSM is helpfully educating us about. You may not even be able to take public transportation if you choose "opt-out", and forget about crossing jurisdictional borders, not to say anything of international borders.
Anyway, we don't have to guess what this will look like. This system has been beta tested in Oligarchs' pet project, the New China.
Anyway, we don't have to guess what this will look like. This system has been beta tested in Oligarchs' pet project, the New China.
I don't think it's all doom and gloom, there are plenty of instances where the people have nullified the state's intentions and this will be no different. Let me just list a few here:
Cuba: It doesn't matter how many land lines you lock down, people want to watch Game of Thrones.
United States: It doesn't matter how many distilleries/dispensaries you close down, people want to drink and smoke.
China: It doesn't matter how many children the state says you can have, people want to have children.
The dystopia always emerges from the extremes states take to quell people's wants/needs, and almost always nabs the weakest or most brazen "criminals". There is a inexplicable beauty to this dynamic, individual wit versus collective bueracracy, that I admittedly find romantic.
In this case, individuals might start putting their phones in the fridge overnight, putting their phones in RF blocking sleeves (or just plain aluminum foil as seen in HK), or like you said, just plain leaving their phones at home.
If the state forces phones to act as a form of identity or requires a phone in public, all it takes is one edge case of "Old man without phone brutalized by police" for concessions to the rule. Would you be arrested for not charging your phone? What about if you have an older model? How would the state respond to a hacked version of the identity app being propagated?
The fractal of side effects expands as you attempt to answer each one of these questions, and that's why people need to believe the requirements are just and appropriate, unless of course your response is so over the top and totalitarian that only the most viciously clever and brave step up and challenge it.
Cuba: It doesn't matter how many land lines you lock down, people want to watch Game of Thrones.
United States: It doesn't matter how many distilleries/dispensaries you close down, people want to drink and smoke.
China: It doesn't matter how many children the state says you can have, people want to have children.
The dystopia always emerges from the extremes states take to quell people's wants/needs, and almost always nabs the weakest or most brazen "criminals". There is a inexplicable beauty to this dynamic, individual wit versus collective bueracracy, that I admittedly find romantic.
In this case, individuals might start putting their phones in the fridge overnight, putting their phones in RF blocking sleeves (or just plain aluminum foil as seen in HK), or like you said, just plain leaving their phones at home.
If the state forces phones to act as a form of identity or requires a phone in public, all it takes is one edge case of "Old man without phone brutalized by police" for concessions to the rule. Would you be arrested for not charging your phone? What about if you have an older model? How would the state respond to a hacked version of the identity app being propagated?
The fractal of side effects expands as you attempt to answer each one of these questions, and that's why people need to believe the requirements are just and appropriate, unless of course your response is so over the top and totalitarian that only the most viciously clever and brave step up and challenge it.
Digital surveillance technologies used to advertise toothpaste, however, should (or at least will) remain largely unregulated and free to do what they want
So in some countries a government initiative to track people using mobile electronic devices might lead to greater privacy. We could end up with government-issued phones as an alternative to phones designed and continually updated by foreign corporations. (Though clearly there are lots of ways the story could go.)
Any day of the week, I'd much prefer to be tracked by Google trying to sell me things than have my every action tracked by the government through my government-issued phone. If those are my only two options, give me Google any day.
Google and Apple teaming up to enforce tracking at the OS level, very clever indeed:
"The Verge: Apple and Google have a clever way of encouraging people to install contact-tracing apps for COVID-19." https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/4/14/21219289/apple-...
"The Verge: Apple and Google have a clever way of encouraging people to install contact-tracing apps for COVID-19." https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/4/14/21219289/apple-...
In fairness, the government somehow tracked the cell phones of numerous spring breakers. So, I mean, obviously they already have some ability to do the tracking without any changes by google or apple at all. This just makes that ability known to smart phone users.
They most likely did that through triangulation, which is too coarse for contact tracing.
But they actually did contact tracing for the spring breakers using whatever method they have now. So either they have another method, or triangulation was good enough for the contact tracing they wanted to do.
Ed Snowden discussing the topic on Vice:
https://youtu.be/k5OAjnveyJo
https://youtu.be/k5OAjnveyJo
the video is unavailable outside of the US
Temporary error maybe? I'm not in the US and can watch it perfectly.
A related post is EFF's blog post about contract tracing apps[1]. They talk about many of the same issues as CCC but specifically targeted to contract tracing.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/challenge-proximity-ap...
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/challenge-proximity-ap...
Liberty is a human right. Digital surveillance is fundamentally an invasion of liberty, so by its very nature such surveillance is antithetical to human rights.
there's many liberties, and they often directly conflict. My liberty to listening to music I like conflicts with my neighbour's liberty to sleep at night.
Not saying CCC are wrong here - they're pretty much spot on, as so often - but making sweeping statements like this is doing a disservice to this much-needed discourse.
Not saying CCC are wrong here - they're pretty much spot on, as so often - but making sweeping statements like this is doing a disservice to this much-needed discourse.
Digital surveillance is a violation of human rights in the same way a policeman cannot enter your house without warrant to observe you and search you. This is one of the oldest principles in modern political thought and it stretches back to at least Semayne's Case in 1604.
Your neighbor has a right to sleep in his home. If you blast music, you are disturbing the serenity of his home. That is a different question than the government coming into your private affairs to spy on you.
If you really believe that your assertion is applicable, apply it to this circumstance (digital surveillance), rather than setting up a different argument (music and sleep) where your assertion better applies.
Your assertion essentially amounts to "all clear principles are bad because they obscure exceptions." First, this is reflexive -- it applies to itself. Second, it is the burden of the exception to prove itself, not the burden of the rule to prove all of its own exceptions; the government needs a reason specific to me in order to observe my private affairs, and in absence of such a warrant I have a blanket protection from those observations.
Your neighbor has a right to sleep in his home. If you blast music, you are disturbing the serenity of his home. That is a different question than the government coming into your private affairs to spy on you.
If you really believe that your assertion is applicable, apply it to this circumstance (digital surveillance), rather than setting up a different argument (music and sleep) where your assertion better applies.
Your assertion essentially amounts to "all clear principles are bad because they obscure exceptions." First, this is reflexive -- it applies to itself. Second, it is the burden of the exception to prove itself, not the burden of the rule to prove all of its own exceptions; the government needs a reason specific to me in order to observe my private affairs, and in absence of such a warrant I have a blanket protection from those observations.
> My liberty to listening to music I like conflicts with my neighbour's liberty to sleep at night
Well use headphones or don’t crank the amp.
Well use headphones or don’t crank the amp.
If we want to deal with this pandemic and technological tools like tracking apps are deemed essential to that goal then my view is that these tools should be built and deployed with effectiveness in mind, not privacy.
The privacy aspect should then be dealt with by enacting stringent time limits on the use of these tools, not by constraining them.
Here in Europe I see discussions and arguments that such tools cannot be deployed because they would breach privacy, or that people will refuse to use them for the same reason.
I think that this is like arguing about dinner on a sinking ship.
The privacy aspect should then be dealt with by enacting stringent time limits on the use of these tools, not by constraining them.
Here in Europe I see discussions and arguments that such tools cannot be deployed because they would breach privacy, or that people will refuse to use them for the same reason.
I think that this is like arguing about dinner on a sinking ship.
Human decision making is terrifyingly biased. The fear that currently grips the world and its leaders is perfect cover for leaders bent on a totalitarian streak.
'Doing what is right', 'fighting this and that'.
Your own point made here is evidence that you too are at least partially in this state of mind, given that you equate our current situation to being on a sinking ship.
A number of questions come to mind:
Are we really in such a dire situation?
Is compromising on rights justified to get rid of this situation?
About 1. Some countries got hit very hard, communities ripped apart and families devastated. That's not even considering the drawn out consequences of the economic downturn. The situation is dire.
But on 2, it's much easier: I don't want you or anyone else to know about my stuff. Its nobodies business but my own. I completely opposed to any form of control in the name or for the sake of fighting this. Any technical measure I will oppose, probably quite successfully. I reject the premise that we're able to make effective decisions right now that are not clouded in fear, are not too drastic and can be modeled to effectively respect our rights.
'Doing what is right', 'fighting this and that'.
Your own point made here is evidence that you too are at least partially in this state of mind, given that you equate our current situation to being on a sinking ship.
A number of questions come to mind:
Are we really in such a dire situation?
Is compromising on rights justified to get rid of this situation?
About 1. Some countries got hit very hard, communities ripped apart and families devastated. That's not even considering the drawn out consequences of the economic downturn. The situation is dire.
But on 2, it's much easier: I don't want you or anyone else to know about my stuff. Its nobodies business but my own. I completely opposed to any form of control in the name or for the sake of fighting this. Any technical measure I will oppose, probably quite successfully. I reject the premise that we're able to make effective decisions right now that are not clouded in fear, are not too drastic and can be modeled to effectively respect our rights.
It's a question of priority, not ideology or naivety or fear.
There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear.
In the US and Western Europe we are factually on a sinking ship. The economy and society as a whole are sinking. This must stop as soon as possible.
If tools like tracking apps allow to reopen sooner while controlling the pandemic then this ought to be the priority.
This is a minimal compromise of rights for a limited time only (the 'limited time' part is what ought to be the safeguard).
The fear, and frankly paranoia, is not on the side of being in favour of these tools, it is on the side of rejecting them for ideological reasons. It's seeking a pyrrhic victory: "Ah everything collapsed but at least no-one could track me on my commute to my long lost job!".
There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear.
In the US and Western Europe we are factually on a sinking ship. The economy and society as a whole are sinking. This must stop as soon as possible.
If tools like tracking apps allow to reopen sooner while controlling the pandemic then this ought to be the priority.
This is a minimal compromise of rights for a limited time only (the 'limited time' part is what ought to be the safeguard).
The fear, and frankly paranoia, is not on the side of being in favour of these tools, it is on the side of rejecting them for ideological reasons. It's seeking a pyrrhic victory: "Ah everything collapsed but at least no-one could track me on my commute to my long lost job!".
Most stringently disagree. There are numerous examples in history where do-good measures have later been abused in the most abhorrent manner possible. In fact, I'm living in a place whose history is influenced by one of these examples[1].
Our ideology, ideas and what we do and don't find acceptable in this world are what matters. We can't sacrifice our rights in the name of necessity because it just doesn't stop. ever. There will always be disease. There will always be terrorists. There will always be criminals, child pornography and drugs.
As an example of deaths that our system does find acceptable just look at the amount of deaths caused by drunk driving. It's technologically perfectly feasible to equip every car with a breathalyzer, but we don't. The number of deaths from the current disease is obviously higher, but that too will pass, the cars will still be there.
History is also littered with disaster and recovery. Doesn't mean every disaster has to happen, also doesn't mean things have to be sacrificed to stop one either. In the end that's my stance on this: rather face this current disaster, than the one we'd be constructing when we sacrifice our rights.
And that's just how it is, as far as I'm concerned.
[1] https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-...
Our ideology, ideas and what we do and don't find acceptable in this world are what matters. We can't sacrifice our rights in the name of necessity because it just doesn't stop. ever. There will always be disease. There will always be terrorists. There will always be criminals, child pornography and drugs.
As an example of deaths that our system does find acceptable just look at the amount of deaths caused by drunk driving. It's technologically perfectly feasible to equip every car with a breathalyzer, but we don't. The number of deaths from the current disease is obviously higher, but that too will pass, the cars will still be there.
History is also littered with disaster and recovery. Doesn't mean every disaster has to happen, also doesn't mean things have to be sacrificed to stop one either. In the end that's my stance on this: rather face this current disaster, than the one we'd be constructing when we sacrifice our rights.
And that's just how it is, as far as I'm concerned.
[1] https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-...
> There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear.
This is wrong. Governments have a long history of opportunistically expanding their reach and power when it comes to matters concerning privacy. The PATRIOT Act, for instance, or everything Snowden has written about. Only rarely do they voluntarily give it up.
I can see where you're coming from with your other points, but there's a good reason people here tend to be very distrustful of governments when it comes to privacy matters.
This is wrong. Governments have a long history of opportunistically expanding their reach and power when it comes to matters concerning privacy. The PATRIOT Act, for instance, or everything Snowden has written about. Only rarely do they voluntarily give it up.
I can see where you're coming from with your other points, but there's a good reason people here tend to be very distrustful of governments when it comes to privacy matters.
Thats a convenient framing to have that simply dismisses reality and the past rather than dealing with them. It wont be a minimal compromise of rights, it will be direct violations. It will not be limited and it will be used beyond its intent. They have proven this time and again. They cannot be trusted, nor can the people that come after them who made no such promises.
This is the same crap Congress tries to give us on so many issues. 'Here is our solution, its the only possible solution (its not) so it must be passed even though its terrible.'
This is the same crap Congress tries to give us on so many issues. 'Here is our solution, its the only possible solution (its not) so it must be passed even though its terrible.'
I think your second point, in particular, is underrated. With stringent (and credible) time limits, of the sort "these measures are guaranteed to end by Feb 1, 2021", more severe impositions on privacy/liberty could be tolerable.
A big worry in any crisis is that the "temporary" measures turn out not to be temporary. A credible way to guarantee that they are, in fact, temporary, would be a fantastic development in society's response to pandemics etc. (It's hard for me to imagine what a credible guarantee would look like -- if you purchase privacy-invading software X from a company, then after the crisis is past, that software still exists! Just by the fact that the software exists, it's now easier to re-institute its use...)
The flip side of this: right now, in the absence of such a guarantee, it's awfully difficult (at least in my mind, and many of the commenters here) to justify any erosion of privacy laws+practices. This is simply because the erosion will presumably be permanent, while the crisis is not.
A big worry in any crisis is that the "temporary" measures turn out not to be temporary. A credible way to guarantee that they are, in fact, temporary, would be a fantastic development in society's response to pandemics etc. (It's hard for me to imagine what a credible guarantee would look like -- if you purchase privacy-invading software X from a company, then after the crisis is past, that software still exists! Just by the fact that the software exists, it's now easier to re-institute its use...)
The flip side of this: right now, in the absence of such a guarantee, it's awfully difficult (at least in my mind, and many of the commenters here) to justify any erosion of privacy laws+practices. This is simply because the erosion will presumably be permanent, while the crisis is not.
A credible guarantee is the law (as always): These apps must be removed and disable by law after a given time.
Beyond that, guarantees are the same as always: We elect the people who draft the law.
Beyond that, guarantees are the same as always: We elect the people who draft the law.
I don't think you're right in your assessment of the current discussions in Europe. I think people's focus currently is on how to build these apps in a way that respects privacy as much as possible, and not that it's not possible. Even the CCC is clear in that regard. That said, I agree that the containment of this epidemic is of utmost importance.
On the one hand, some people do seem against these apps on privacy grounds, we see it in this very thread. On the other hand, some people are indeed spending precious time on investigating if and how they can be built to respect privacy.
If we need these apps we need them fast. We don't have the luxury to wait 6 months for clever implementations. Again, to me that's having priorities wrong.
If we need these apps we need them fast. We don't have the luxury to wait 6 months for clever implementations. Again, to me that's having priorities wrong.
This concern about the apps seems overblown to me. They should make them opt-in and time-limited, and add whatever privacy-preserving features they can. If they're still around in 1 or 2 years or whenever the pandemic risk is gone, tens of millions of people are going to be like "why is this still an app?". It's not like this is some kind of sneaky thing they're slipping by you. You'll know if you have the app or not.
The real fear isn't opt-in apps from Google/Apple. It's broad, new privacy-infringing legislation. That's the sneaky thing that could be largely invisible, abused for decades, and hard to undo. Just keep an eye out for that. Otherwise, let's try to maybe cut the length of this current situation by months.
The real fear isn't opt-in apps from Google/Apple. It's broad, new privacy-infringing legislation. That's the sneaky thing that could be largely invisible, abused for decades, and hard to undo. Just keep an eye out for that. Otherwise, let's try to maybe cut the length of this current situation by months.
What is the point of doing contract tracing if it is optional?
IMHO, if (key point) it is deemed that contact tracing is crucial then it should be mandatory with government-approved apps. People who do not want to be traced are then 'free' to stay confined at home until this is over.
IMHO, if (key point) it is deemed that contact tracing is crucial then it should be mandatory with government-approved apps. People who do not want to be traced are then 'free' to stay confined at home until this is over.
It's a tough trade-off. In my opinion, I think 85%+ of people will likely agree to opt-in. It's not perfect, but it'd be far better than anything we have right now.
Trying to make it mandatory, and trying to enforce the confinement of dissenters, as you refer to, might actually lead to less total adoption in the US. People will protest and boycott, there'll be endless conspiracy theories (there already are, but way more people will believe these than 5G hoaxes; and worse, the theories may not even be implausible), and I think it'd just stir up a lot of trouble. A large percentage of Americans just don't like mandatory enforcement of measures that reduce freedom or privacy.
I think Google and Apple can present this in a way that will result in most people agreeing to it.
Trying to make it mandatory, and trying to enforce the confinement of dissenters, as you refer to, might actually lead to less total adoption in the US. People will protest and boycott, there'll be endless conspiracy theories (there already are, but way more people will believe these than 5G hoaxes; and worse, the theories may not even be implausible), and I think it'd just stir up a lot of trouble. A large percentage of Americans just don't like mandatory enforcement of measures that reduce freedom or privacy.
I think Google and Apple can present this in a way that will result in most people agreeing to it.
Extreme individualism has a price. If Americans are willing to pay it, and they seem to when we look at issues other than the pandemic, then be it. It's up to them.
Yeah. In this case I just think it's a matter of pragmatism. Principles aside, I think there'll just be more adoption if it's opt-in instead of mandatory. Maybe not in other countries, but I think that's probably how it'd go in America.
Recent studies seem to indicate that even a participation rate of 60% or something would significantly slow the spread of the infection (of course, it all depends on the model parameters...).
IMHO, most people ITT who are against the apps are American and have a different mindset when it comes to balancing individual liberties and communal wellbeing. Even the CCC has never said that such apps are bad per se, if done right.
We don't have to wait 6 months. Those apps are easy to develop, there are several candidates already and others are being developed by the authorities themselves.
We don't have to wait 6 months. Those apps are easy to develop, there are several candidates already and others are being developed by the authorities themselves.
I think anyone interested in the subject ought to play the Deus Ex game series (especially the last two entries in the franchise)
If you must err, err on the side of liberty, freedom, and privacy.
At present it is due the pandemic, next it will target some set of people because they are undesirable - because you know, that would supposedly make us safe. We know how that ended the last time. Whether it is contact tracing or wearing an arm band, underneath it is the same thing.
When an individual is compelled, for the perceived safety of the majority, it leads to slavery. It also destroys the majority. And technology accelerates this process.
Having seen rights being eroded, trampled, mocked, I have realized that we do not have any effective rights. They are a privilege bestowed by those in power.