7 ms·

The interesting thing about ideas like this is that they reveal how authoritarianism during times of stability does a terrible amount of damage during times of

The interesting thing about ideas like this is that they reveal how authoritarianism during times of stability does a terrible amount of damage during times of crisis. This is the sort of problem that could be solved in a better world; collecting location data to find interactions between people would allow you to get them tested faster and prevent a disease from spreading. But it simply can't be done in this country primarily because everyone has the entirely reasonable fear that the feds want this power for nefarious reasons and will never give it up - and they're probably right. If we had a society where privacy was an absolute right, and civic trust in our community organizations and institutions was built up over time, during a crisis like this one we could come together and find agreement on a way of providing this data to a responsible institution that would use it only for the purpose of saving lives and then delete it when the crisis was over. And they'd lose access to future data at that point too. Anyone who still didn't trust the communal institutions could opt out, but the point of building up this trust is that it makes people want to work together and feel safe doing so. We're so far from that in this country that we're not only paranoid about privacy issues, it seems altogether most likely that our secret agencies are actively planning to exploit this crisis to be able to spy on us in the future.

guscost 7y ago
I’ve regressed to my cynical default in the past few days, but “a large institution that I would trust with this authority” sounds like pure fantasy.
- bscphil 7y ago
  I don't know, maybe it is. Maybe the politics of our world simply are that cynical and won't allow for such a thing to exist. But I guess I'm hoping it isn't. I'm trying to imagine how a non-authoritarian institution would work; it wouldn't have the "authority" to compel anyone to turn over their data, but just about everyone would have enough trust in the community and its decision making process to be okay with it. What I guess I'm asking is ... what if the organizations we built looked more like the WHO, and less like the CIA?
  - teh_infallible 7y ago
    Personally, I think the only way we will retake our privacy is when hobby level, readily available hardware, software, and 3d printable parts enable hobbyists to create “good enough” phones with encryption and privacy options that won’t exist in mass market phones. Then an enterprising startup can deliver marked-up, preassembled devices, then people might have privacy again.
    - saurik 7y ago
      The goalposts on "good enough" keep moving. When everyone else has a holographic direct-to-eye refraction display, people are going to be as disappointed in a 2020-level smartphone as people were with OpenMoko devices, which still had a pressure-sensitive touch screen with a plastic stylus when the iPhone has just come out with its relatively massive capacitive multitouch display.
      - toast0 7y ago
        I was disappointed with the OpenMoko for many reasons, but the screen wasn't one. Things like it wouldn't read my sim (bug 666), the stylus was almost required, but there was no place to put it, audio issues, sleep/wake issues, poor battery indication and tricky to charge from a flat battery. Sure, the screen was kind of small, but the resolution was high, so you could claim hidpi before Apple invented it?
      - wideasleep1 7y ago
        Depends...'good enough' goalposts are for a particular audience. Technophobes seeking privacy are certainly less motivated to upgrade to a holographic direct-to-eye display, than a technophile.
    - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
      You can already buy a Blackphone. Almost no-one does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackphone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackphone
    - zajio1am 7y ago
- rriepe 7y ago
  I agree but it's also the most compelling fantasy in human history.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    I disagree that "large" authorities could be fantastic. Authority, like most things, is better when smaller. For one thing, a small authority is more likely to notice those people subject to it.
    - rriepe 7y ago
      Just to be clear, I don't subscribe to it. But I have noticed that pretty much any time anyone has a good idea, their next idea is to force everyone to do it.
- kaybe 7y ago
  I would trust the CCC or the EFF with this I think, and the other paranoid fighters for privacy. But only as long as it takes for the to rotate their members enough for takeover by others. We've seen that wit smaller political parties as well. When membership suddenly become a viable path to power things change in the structure and people.
  - jcims 7y ago
    >But only as long as it takes for the to rotate their members enough for takeover by others. This is the key. The power makes joining their ranks appealing to those that would abuse the power.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  I agree. Once you cross the point in organizational size where people stop feeling personally responsible for the organization and start feeling responsible to the organization it starts behaving like a sociopath in pursuit of whatever it's official goals are (shareholder value, catching criminals, etc). You can mitigate this to some extent by having one or a couple people who are personally responsible for the whole organization (royal families in monarchies, the owners of privately owned companies, etc) but then your organixation is not resilient to bad leadership.
bobloblaw45 7y ago
Yeah this is kinda how we got the Patriot Act.
- CriticalCathed 7y ago
  Which also has a sunset clause that will never ever be allowed to expire. All this talk of temporary authority is a joke.
sifar 7y ago
>> paranoid about privacy issues it is not paranoia but an acknowledgement of the times we live in. >> our secret agencies are actively planning to exploit this crisis to be able to spy on us in the future. this is based on their past history. Like you said, it is entirely due to utter lack of trust.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 7y ago
I agree. Ironically the measures that should have increased national security are endangering social contracts established around fundamental rights in a way the opposite is achieved. But I guess you are preaching to the choir here... But that aside, I don't think the measure would be worthwhile even now. Instead focus should be to fortify local health services and provide support where needed. A damaged believe that fundamental rights are compromised has of course negative repercussions on the willingness to cooperate with authorities of any kind. Trust cannot be enforced and authority is always limited. I wouldn't call it paranoia, because in that case the respective fears aren't confirmed that often by people now in solitary confinement because some hot shots thought they were in control and did was was allegedly necessary.
petra 7y ago
But the data already exists. Google has it. The smallest step up from that is running an open-source algorithm on Google's servers, for corona detection. From that situation, maybe we could figure out a way that people would trust, enough ?
pjc50 7y ago
> a responsible institution that would use it only for the purpose of saving lives and then delete it when the crisis was over The UK managed to get rid of ID cards in 1948 on pretty much this basis. The problem is, that war ended, but the one started on 9/11/2001 hasn't. For temporary authority we need both clearly defined end conditions, a belief that they will be reached, and faith in the authorities to work in good faith towards the ending of that crisis.
zajio1am 7y ago
It just shows that different people have different triggers that makes acceptable for them to restrict basic rigths and liberties. For some it is terrorism or child pornography, for others it is pandemic. We do not really need to find agreement, it would suffice if mobile operators implement opt-in that could be easily enabled in web portals. Then society can just advertise this opt-in.
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
You describe anarchy. Capitalism exists because such trust is not achievable.
nnq 7y ago
> This is the sort of problem that could be solved in a better world; collecting location data to find interactions between people would allow you to get them tested faster NO. Global data about who interacts with who and where should NOT be available to anyone. Especially NOT to HEALTHCARE orgs, I couldn't imagine less trustworthy and skewed-incentives institutions! At least you can trust that a country's secret service like your NSA would keep most of that data safe (as in "safe even the eyes of from judges & prosecutors unless you have a national security issue" etc.). Like in I'd rather have +10k deaths from preventable contagious diseases per year and take the chance of being amongst them then having this on a wide scale. > civic trust in our community organizations and institutions was built up over time You have no reason to trust anyone and anything. Stop doing so. > a responsible institution There's no such thing. Any institution should be considered thoroughly corrupted in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > our secret agencies are actively planning to exploit this It's their job to do so! If you want to provide solid security in globally connected world the "protectors" need to be a bit above the law - it's OK as long as what they collect stays in their archives and you prevent them from holding political or financial power. The point is to build societies that can function TRUSTLESSLY and where everything is SECRET BY DEFAULT unless explicitly shared. That's the only way to have an open society! Sure, in small isolated pockets you can have your "trust" in institutions and stuff. Otherwise it's a choice between: (1) accept framework of trustlessness + secrecy-by-default + broad exceptions for security agencies mostly as long as they DON'T share data with anyone (no, not even to "save lives", unless you're taking more than thousands...) (2) drop the global interconnectedness, drop most free travel and work (I don't mean relocation - you'd also need to drop the kind of temporary travel that can't be easily monitored!), move to a more localist society - here you can have trust in the institutions of your own "pocket" that you voted for yourself. Unfortunately it seems that the pendulum will now swing towards (2) as you seem to say you prefer - ...too bad, I'm sure we could've made the global-village thing work too :( probably we need to try again when tech advances a few extra steps, eg. neural-interfaces + pervasive-AI + usable distributed financial tech. and use the tech properly to make the openness and interlinking irreversible!
tmpz22 7y ago
I had this conversation with my dad a month ago, are we not already past the point of no return on this? Can’t the government legally buy purchasing data from credit bureaus and other vendors? Can’t they legally buy location data commercially from at&t and other entities? Don’t they already do it anyways to monitor food shortages etc,? It’s not a question of can they, but have they yet. Don’t police officers already have access to this data therefore the feds definitely do? The boom in location based advertising a decade ago was the final nail in this coffin because it made the availability of location tracking data required and highly accessible.
gentleman11 7y ago
When they turn in the extra tracking, will non-American data get collected too?
stjohnswarts 7y ago
Privacy should be a right. In the USA it should be up there with the Bill of Rights. The only way it can be gone around is with a warrant or something similar. Cops don't like that and neither do police state regimes.

guscost 7y ago

I’ve regressed to my cynical default in the past few days, but “a large institution that I would trust with this authority” sounds like pure fantasy.

bscphil 7y ago
I don't know, maybe it is. Maybe the politics of our world simply are that cynical and won't allow for such a thing to exist. But I guess I'm hoping it isn't. I'm trying to imagine how a non-authoritarian institution would work; it wouldn't have the "authority" to compel anyone to turn over their data, but just about everyone would have enough trust in the community and its decision making process to be okay with it. What I guess I'm asking is ... what if the organizations we built looked more like the WHO, and less like the CIA?
- teh_infallible 7y ago
  Personally, I think the only way we will retake our privacy is when hobby level, readily available hardware, software, and 3d printable parts enable hobbyists to create “good enough” phones with encryption and privacy options that won’t exist in mass market phones. Then an enterprising startup can deliver marked-up, preassembled devices, then people might have privacy again.
  - saurik 7y ago
    The goalposts on "good enough" keep moving. When everyone else has a holographic direct-to-eye refraction display, people are going to be as disappointed in a 2020-level smartphone as people were with OpenMoko devices, which still had a pressure-sensitive touch screen with a plastic stylus when the iPhone has just come out with its relatively massive capacitive multitouch display.
    - toast0 7y ago
      I was disappointed with the OpenMoko for many reasons, but the screen wasn't one. Things like it wouldn't read my sim (bug 666), the stylus was almost required, but there was no place to put it, audio issues, sleep/wake issues, poor battery indication and tricky to charge from a flat battery. Sure, the screen was kind of small, but the resolution was high, so you could claim hidpi before Apple invented it?
    - wideasleep1 7y ago
      Depends...'good enough' goalposts are for a particular audience. Technophobes seeking privacy are certainly less motivated to upgrade to a holographic direct-to-eye display, than a technophile.
  - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
    You can already buy a Blackphone. Almost no-one does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackphone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackphone
  - zajio1am 7y ago
rriepe 7y ago
I agree but it's also the most compelling fantasy in human history.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  I disagree that "large" authorities could be fantastic. Authority, like most things, is better when smaller. For one thing, a small authority is more likely to notice those people subject to it.
  - rriepe 7y ago
    Just to be clear, I don't subscribe to it. But I have noticed that pretty much any time anyone has a good idea, their next idea is to force everyone to do it.
kaybe 7y ago
I would trust the CCC or the EFF with this I think, and the other paranoid fighters for privacy. But only as long as it takes for the to rotate their members enough for takeover by others. We've seen that wit smaller political parties as well. When membership suddenly become a viable path to power things change in the structure and people.
- jcims 7y ago
  >But only as long as it takes for the to rotate their members enough for takeover by others. This is the key. The power makes joining their ranks appealing to those that would abuse the power.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I agree. Once you cross the point in organizational size where people stop feeling personally responsible for the organization and start feeling responsible to the organization it starts behaving like a sociopath in pursuit of whatever it's official goals are (shareholder value, catching criminals, etc). You can mitigate this to some extent by having one or a couple people who are personally responsible for the whole organization (royal families in monarchies, the owners of privately owned companies, etc) but then your organixation is not resilient to bad leadership.

bobloblaw45 7y ago

Yeah this is kinda how we got the Patriot Act.

CriticalCathed 7y ago
Which also has a sunset clause that will never ever be allowed to expire. All this talk of temporary authority is a joke.

sifar 7y ago

>> paranoid about privacy issues it is not paranoia but an acknowledgement of the times we live in. >> our secret agencies are actively planning to exploit this crisis to be able to spy on us in the future. this is based on their past history. Like you said, it is entirely due to utter lack of trust.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

raxxorrax 7y ago

I agree. Ironically the measures that should have increased national security are endangering social contracts established around fundamental rights in a way the opposite is achieved. But I guess you are preaching to the choir here... But that aside, I don't think the measure would be worthwhile even now. Instead focus should be to fortify local health services and provide support where needed. A damaged believe that fundamental rights are compromised has of course negative repercussions on the willingness to cooperate with authorities of any kind. Trust cannot be enforced and authority is always limited. I wouldn't call it paranoia, because in that case the respective fears aren't confirmed that often by people now in solitary confinement because some hot shots thought they were in control and did was was allegedly necessary.

petra 7y ago

But the data already exists. Google has it. The smallest step up from that is running an open-source algorithm on Google's servers, for corona detection. From that situation, maybe we could figure out a way that people would trust, enough ?

pjc50 7y ago

> a responsible institution that would use it only for the purpose of saving lives and then delete it when the crisis was over The UK managed to get rid of ID cards in 1948 on pretty much this basis. The problem is, that war ended, but the one started on 9/11/2001 hasn't. For temporary authority we need both clearly defined end conditions, a belief that they will be reached, and faith in the authorities to work in good faith towards the ending of that crisis.

zajio1am 7y ago

It just shows that different people have different triggers that makes acceptable for them to restrict basic rigths and liberties. For some it is terrorism or child pornography, for others it is pandemic. We do not really need to find agreement, it would suffice if mobile operators implement opt-in that could be easily enabled in web portals. Then society can just advertise this opt-in.

GoblinSlayer 7y ago

You describe anarchy. Capitalism exists because such trust is not achievable.

nnq 7y ago

> This is the sort of problem that could be solved in a better world; collecting location data to find interactions between people would allow you to get them tested faster NO. Global data about who interacts with who and where should NOT be available to anyone. Especially NOT to HEALTHCARE orgs, I couldn't imagine less trustworthy and skewed-incentives institutions! At least you can trust that a country's secret service like your NSA would keep most of that data safe (as in "safe even the eyes of from judges & prosecutors unless you have a national security issue" etc.). Like in I'd rather have +10k deaths from preventable contagious diseases per year and take the chance of being amongst them then having this on a wide scale. > civic trust in our community organizations and institutions was built up over time You have no reason to trust anyone and anything. Stop doing so. > a responsible institution There's no such thing. Any institution should be considered thoroughly corrupted in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > our secret agencies are actively planning to exploit this It's their job to do so! If you want to provide solid security in globally connected world the "protectors" need to be a bit above the law - it's OK as long as what they collect stays in their archives and you prevent them from holding political or financial power. The point is to build societies that can function TRUSTLESSLY and where everything is SECRET BY DEFAULT unless explicitly shared. That's the only way to have an open society! Sure, in small isolated pockets you can have your "trust" in institutions and stuff. Otherwise it's a choice between: (1) accept framework of trustlessness + secrecy-by-default + broad exceptions for security agencies mostly as long as they DON'T share data with anyone (no, not even to "save lives", unless you're taking more than thousands...) (2) drop the global interconnectedness, drop most free travel and work (I don't mean relocation - you'd also need to drop the kind of temporary travel that can't be easily monitored!), move to a more localist society - here you can have trust in the institutions of your own "pocket" that you voted for yourself. Unfortunately it seems that the pendulum will now swing towards (2) as you seem to say you prefer - ...too bad, I'm sure we could've made the global-village thing work too :( probably we need to try again when tech advances a few extra steps, eg. neural-interfaces + pervasive-AI + usable distributed financial tech. and use the tech properly to make the openness and interlinking irreversible!

tmpz22 7y ago

I had this conversation with my dad a month ago, are we not already past the point of no return on this? Can’t the government legally buy purchasing data from credit bureaus and other vendors? Can’t they legally buy location data commercially from at&t and other entities? Don’t they already do it anyways to monitor food shortages etc,? It’s not a question of can they, but have they yet. Don’t police officers already have access to this data therefore the feds definitely do? The boom in location based advertising a decade ago was the final nail in this coffin because it made the availability of location tracking data required and highly accessible.

gentleman11 7y ago

When they turn in the extra tracking, will non-American data get collected too?

stjohnswarts 7y ago

Privacy should be a right. In the USA it should be up there with the Bill of Rights. The only way it can be gone around is with a warrant or something similar. Cops don't like that and neither do police state regimes.