5 ms·

Should we brand these people with serial numbers too? Maybe we should also enroll them in a registry and track their movements.

lostmsu 8y ago
That argument means nothing to a radical anti-privacy person like me (e.g. prohibit any data to be concealed, except the means to authenticate oneself). That particular problem is a great example, where I don't see any harm in revealing that information, as opposed to keeping it secret, which might cause actual harm in conjunction with the human factor.
- dictum 8y ago
  > That particular problem is a great example, where I don't see any harm in revealing that information Surely you're aware of at least one genocide that was greatly aided by detailed demographic data?
  - lostmsu 8y ago
    There's no reason to assume, that in the absence of that data there would be no genocide on some other arbitrary basis.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    Out of deference to the Holocaust, the US government doesn't keep demographic information on religion. As you say, the theory goes that a record of who belongs to what religion might be used to commit genocide. But this theory isn't applied to anything else. The same government collects detailed information on everyone's race, despite the fact that race is a much more common target than religion is.
- shawnz 8y ago
  Ignoring for a second the problems with allowing potential partners to see such data: What about if your employer sees it? Your colleagues? Your friends? Why should any of them have access to that information?
  - lostmsu 8y ago
    Why not?
    - shawnz 8y ago
      Isn't it obvious? It could result in them being ostracised unfairly.
      - lostmsu 8y ago
        So can a funny nose, a manner of speech and hundreds of other things. Why is that information special?
        shawnz 8y ago
        It's not special. If a funny nose was a non-visible condition, then I would be advocating against mandatory public funny nose databases too. But, that happens to be a visible condition so there's not much we can do to protect those people. On the other hand, HIV is a non-visible condition which people could choose not to reveal if they don't want. Why should we take away that right, just because people with funny noses don't get the same luxury?
        lostmsu 8y ago
        > Why should we take away that right, just because people with funny noses don't get the same luxury? > keeping it secret, which might cause actual harm in conjunction with the human factor Looped.
        shawnz 8y ago
        So we have two situations which both might cause harm. We have the situation where there is no mandatory public HIV reporting, which could cause harm in that it potentially allows more transmission of HIV. Then we have the situation where there is mandatory public HIV reporting, which could cause harm in that it could lead to people with HIV being ostracized. Why do you think the latter has more utility than the former? There have already been many good counterarguments in this thread but I will reiterate a few of them: - Not every person with HIV is negligent, and to target people based on their circumstance rather than their actions could end up punishing more non-negligent individuals than negligent ones. - People making risky decisions regarding their sexual partners or use of contraception are already not likely to check such a database even if it existed. - Whereas the risk of transmitting HIV is exclusive to sexual partners, the risks of being publicly identified as HIV positive are far more widespread -- it could impact your career, your social status, etc.
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  radical anti privacy eh? > prohibit any data to be concealed Allright. Here's some questions then. Credit card number, expiry and code please? Also your age, sex, gender, name of any pets, road/city where you grew up in, name of your best childhood friend. > That particular problem is a great example, where I don't see any harm in revealing that information, as opposed to keeping it secret Really? You do not see an issue with releasing very private (_medical records) information in the open? People have gotten killed over having HIV, and now you want to release a list of people who suffer from it?
  - lostmsu 8y ago
    Others asked the first question 2+ times in that same subthread. Please, read that part. How often does that happen vs getting HIV because somebody did not tell about being infected?
  - lostmsu 8y ago
    Actually, in this subthread the answer is in the post you are quoting. In fact, in the quote itself. It has to be a policy.

lostmsu 8y ago

That argument means nothing to a radical anti-privacy person like me (e.g. prohibit any data to be concealed, except the means to authenticate oneself). That particular problem is a great example, where I don't see any harm in revealing that information, as opposed to keeping it secret, which might cause actual harm in conjunction with the human factor.

dictum 8y ago
> That particular problem is a great example, where I don't see any harm in revealing that information Surely you're aware of at least one genocide that was greatly aided by detailed demographic data?
- lostmsu 8y ago
  There's no reason to assume, that in the absence of that data there would be no genocide on some other arbitrary basis.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  Out of deference to the Holocaust, the US government doesn't keep demographic information on religion. As you say, the theory goes that a record of who belongs to what religion might be used to commit genocide. But this theory isn't applied to anything else. The same government collects detailed information on everyone's race, despite the fact that race is a much more common target than religion is.
shawnz 8y ago
Ignoring for a second the problems with allowing potential partners to see such data: What about if your employer sees it? Your colleagues? Your friends? Why should any of them have access to that information?
- lostmsu 8y ago
  Why not?
  - shawnz 8y ago
    Isn't it obvious? It could result in them being ostracised unfairly.
    - lostmsu 8y ago
      So can a funny nose, a manner of speech and hundreds of other things. Why is that information special?
      - shawnz 8y ago
        It's not special. If a funny nose was a non-visible condition, then I would be advocating against mandatory public funny nose databases too. But, that happens to be a visible condition so there's not much we can do to protect those people. On the other hand, HIV is a non-visible condition which people could choose not to reveal if they don't want. Why should we take away that right, just because people with funny noses don't get the same luxury?
        lostmsu 8y ago
        > Why should we take away that right, just because people with funny noses don't get the same luxury? > keeping it secret, which might cause actual harm in conjunction with the human factor Looped.
        shawnz 8y ago
        So we have two situations which both might cause harm. We have the situation where there is no mandatory public HIV reporting, which could cause harm in that it potentially allows more transmission of HIV. Then we have the situation where there is mandatory public HIV reporting, which could cause harm in that it could lead to people with HIV being ostracized. Why do you think the latter has more utility than the former? There have already been many good counterarguments in this thread but I will reiterate a few of them: - Not every person with HIV is negligent, and to target people based on their circumstance rather than their actions could end up punishing more non-negligent individuals than negligent ones. - People making risky decisions regarding their sexual partners or use of contraception are already not likely to check such a database even if it existed. - Whereas the risk of transmitting HIV is exclusive to sexual partners, the risks of being publicly identified as HIV positive are far more widespread -- it could impact your career, your social status, etc.
thecatspaw 8y ago
radical anti privacy eh? > prohibit any data to be concealed Allright. Here's some questions then. Credit card number, expiry and code please? Also your age, sex, gender, name of any pets, road/city where you grew up in, name of your best childhood friend. > That particular problem is a great example, where I don't see any harm in revealing that information, as opposed to keeping it secret Really? You do not see an issue with releasing very private (_medical records) information in the open? People have gotten killed over having HIV, and now you want to release a list of people who suffer from it?
- lostmsu 8y ago
  Others asked the first question 2+ times in that same subthread. Please, read that part. How often does that happen vs getting HIV because somebody did not tell about being infected?
- lostmsu 8y ago
  Actually, in this subthread the answer is in the post you are quoting. In fact, in the quote itself. It has to be a policy.