5 ms·
No.
by plugger 8y ago
No.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoThat all depends on whether you think it's more important to help people who don't have HIV to avoid being infected with it, or to help people who do have HIV to infect other people with it.
- yeahitslikethat 8y agoAccording to the cdc: General criminal statutes, such as reckless endangerment and attempted murder, can be used to criminalize behaviors that can potentially expose another to HIV and or an STD. I know that the cdc is not Singapore but likely the same.
- krageon 8y agoPeople who have HIV have a right to privacy just like every other human being. It is their responsibility to inform their potential partners. If they don't do that, then they should face consequences but let's not for a second imagine that they're all evil faceless goons who go around and using their privacy as "help" to infect other people.
- lostmsu 8y agoYou forget about simple negligence. Are you saying, that no single HIV+ person ever gets drunk at parties with unintended consequences?
- isostatic 8y agoAnd when two drunk people hook up the first thing they do is check a leak of hiv data? Is that after exchanging photo ID?
- lostmsu 8y agoNot if they did not know each other beforehand. But if they did, that is very much possible. I am surprised you asked that question. The answer seems obvious??
- krageon 8y agoI think you're seeing some cultural difference here. That is, assuming this is actually the sort of thing you do in real life.
- lostmsu 8y agoI honestly have no idea what do drunk people do, that leads to random intercourses. It is an "educated guess", that in many if not the most cases the participants know each other. And looking people up on the Internet is a common thing nowadays.
- dictum 8y ago> I honestly have no idea what do drunk people do, that leads to random intercourses. Suggesting public policy that affects a group whose activities and motivations I'm ignorant about is quite the gamble.
- krageon 8y agoMaybe it would be a good idea for you to actually understand the problem domain you're inventing solutions for before you start thinking up far-reaching methods to mitigate a problem using a method that is unlikely to be used the way you intend it to. Especially if said methods have the potential to impact actual people's lives in a very negative way.
- maccard 8y agoDon't be ridiculous. Brand everyone with QR codes that can be scanned to show a quick list of things like HIV, mental health issues, wrong political beliefs. I'm pretty sure there's ways to design QR codes, so we could come up with a way to embed a brand of a few of the "worst" traits so you can see before you scan.
- lostmsu 8y agoWould be fine if you'd also keep and make public the audit logs.
- dictum 8y agoI'm not sure how "HIV+ positive people must be tracked" follows from "HIV+ people can make mistakes". By that logic, everyone's movements and personal details should be tracked by the police/government/some third-party because there's a risk, someday, of someone sexually assaulting (or committing any other crime against) someone else.
- lostmsu 8y agoI am a radical anti-privacy person, so I am all for a variant of that, where the 3rd party is everyone. "That logic" assumes there's little harm in having that data public. Unlike police tracking, which has proven to be a terrible idea.
- IAmEveryone 8y agoPlease tell us your name, address, and a link to a nude photo.
- lostmsu 8y agoMost of that is a public information, that you can look up. Can't give you a link to a nude photo, as I don't have one. But surely you must understand, no privacy can only work when it is universal. Its a simple prisoner's dilemma.
- matt4077 8y ago@> no privacy can only work when it is universal. Great, so you agree there shouldn’t be a HIV database, until everyone’s nudes, income, and porn searches are online. I can life with that, actually.
- thecatspaw 8y ago> Most of that is a public information, that you can look up. So, Victor, is that why you're hiding behind a pseudonym and avoiding questions?
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoThat's an argument for publicising every issue that might damage others if drunk, negligent or careless. Hepatitis, short temper, gun ownership, knife ownership, herpes, syphilis etc. In fact why not everyone's medical records, just in case? If not, why do those infected with this virus deserve special public demonisation? For the avoidance of doubt, I think this would be a terrible idea.
- lostmsu 8y agoRight. One just has to weight risks on publishing vs keeping private on every such issue, and expose ones with the highest shift to the later.