4 ms·

I'm going to go ahead and call you a cynic here. Do you really think there's any way that the State of Washington will be permanently banning events over 50 pe

I'm going to go ahead and call you a cynic here. Do you really think there's any way that the State of Washington will be permanently banning events over 50 people? Do you really think there's any way that the State of Washington will be permanently preventing the operation of bars, dine-in restaurants, and entertainment facilities? I'm generally pretty skeptical of creeping government powers myself, but this just...doesn't seem like a place where the government is going to keep these things shut down permanently. Which of these enacted bans are you concerned about becoming permanent?

ryanobjc 7y ago
Maybe they’re worried that sick pay for all workers will become permanent?
mardifoufs 7y ago
No, but it could normalize doing all of that in the future. Giving up rights once usually make these rights less untouchable in the future which doesn't have to mean that the current measures will be permanent.
- graeme 7y ago
  Counterpoint: the west has had quarantine measures in its traditions for centuries, while developing the individual rights approach. We haven’t had to use them much in living memory, but they were not permanent in the past. Quarantine has been a necessary fact of human life for centuries. We just lived in a blessed time.
  - kerng 7y ago
    The word quarantine comes from having to spend 40 days mooring outside of Venice before being allowed to enter for trade.
    - graeme 7y ago
      Wow thanks! Can’t believe I never noticed the linguistic connection.
  - mardifoufs 7y ago
    You're right and I don't necessarily agree with the original comment but governments have a much bigger place our lives today than in the past. They also have a much better ability to actually permenantly enforce those new restrictions. The patriot act and all the measures taken because of 9/11 are still here simply since it is now so easy to keep them active which wasn't true in the past at all. Not because they are needed. The same could happen in the future!
    - graeme 7y ago
      I agree it’s certainly something to watch for. One difference is everyone is paying attention. People didn’t care about the details of the patriot act.
dkdk8283 7y ago
What about South Korea’s use of data in crisis? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51733145 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51733145
- ncallaway 7y ago
  Sure, I think those privacy concerns are a little bit different. I am slightly more hesitant about things like that, but at the same time I think that use of data has probably greatly helped their response in controlling the epidemic. Overall, I'm probably in favor of the use of this kind of data in this scenario, but the "slippery-slope" argument makes a lot more sense there to me. While we've had epidemics and pandemics in the past, we've never had them with the intersection of shared personal data before. We haven't really had any time as a society to think about the utility or the dangers of this kind of approach. Once the acute phase of the crisis is over, I'd love to see a lot of thinking go into how we can get the benefits of this kind of data while mitigating as much of the privacy downsides as possible.

ryanobjc 7y ago

Maybe they’re worried that sick pay for all workers will become permanent?

mardifoufs 7y ago

No, but it could normalize doing all of that in the future. Giving up rights once usually make these rights less untouchable in the future which doesn't have to mean that the current measures will be permanent.

graeme 7y ago
Counterpoint: the west has had quarantine measures in its traditions for centuries, while developing the individual rights approach. We haven’t had to use them much in living memory, but they were not permanent in the past. Quarantine has been a necessary fact of human life for centuries. We just lived in a blessed time.
- kerng 7y ago
  The word quarantine comes from having to spend 40 days mooring outside of Venice before being allowed to enter for trade.
  - graeme 7y ago
    Wow thanks! Can’t believe I never noticed the linguistic connection.
- mardifoufs 7y ago
  You're right and I don't necessarily agree with the original comment but governments have a much bigger place our lives today than in the past. They also have a much better ability to actually permenantly enforce those new restrictions. The patriot act and all the measures taken because of 9/11 are still here simply since it is now so easy to keep them active which wasn't true in the past at all. Not because they are needed. The same could happen in the future!
  - graeme 7y ago
    I agree it’s certainly something to watch for. One difference is everyone is paying attention. People didn’t care about the details of the patriot act.

dkdk8283 7y ago

What about South Korea’s use of data in crisis? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51733145 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51733145

ncallaway 7y ago
Sure, I think those privacy concerns are a little bit different. I am slightly more hesitant about things like that, but at the same time I think that use of data has probably greatly helped their response in controlling the epidemic. Overall, I'm probably in favor of the use of this kind of data in this scenario, but the "slippery-slope" argument makes a lot more sense there to me. While we've had epidemics and pandemics in the past, we've never had them with the intersection of shared personal data before. We haven't really had any time as a society to think about the utility or the dangers of this kind of approach. Once the acute phase of the crisis is over, I'd love to see a lot of thinking go into how we can get the benefits of this kind of data while mitigating as much of the privacy downsides as possible.