15 ms·

Toronto is gathering cellphone location data to find people congregating

103 points by colinprince 7y ago

dontbenebby 7y ago
>totally anonymous cellphone location information that's a bold claim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak |https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize#Privacy_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize#Privacy_concerns and so on and so forth, these data sets are hard to truly anonymize
- ctrl-j 7y ago
  Only because they capture a lot of data and keep the row level information. If you just grabbed clustered coordinates without any device information there wouldn't be enough data to be able to reconstruct identity information.
  - Cpoll 7y ago
    There's a lot of ways it can go wrong though: - If they provide a unique ID with each coordinate. Now you can deanonymize by correlation - If they provide a coordinate for every used in the system. Now you know where everyone is - From the above, if the data is presented in frequent intervals, you can correlate coordinates with last know coordinates and start drawing paths I'd be comfortable if the request is "give us a coordinate for every area that has more than N users in it" for some large N. Filtering out apartment buildings shouldn't be too difficult.
    - zelphirkalt 7y ago
      > every useD in the system Funny typo, or perhaps not? Reminds me of Stallman talking about Facebook and switching out "users" with "useds".
bluehazed 7y ago
As the article says, this isn't legal, and violates Provincial Privacy law.
- usr01398132 7y ago
  These laws have been violated by DOOH companies for the past decade. Yet no one really talks about the private sector tracking people without consent. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22685912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22685912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-home_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-home_advertising
  - refurb 7y ago
    People talk about the private sector violating privacy all the time. The gov't doing it is even worse since they have the power to put you in jail and take all your possessions if they want to. Private companies don't.
Proziam 7y ago
You can dislike the behavior all you want, and call it out as being immoral and stupid. You can fine people if they take risks that cause harm to others. But if you get in the way of the freedom to assemble and communicate like human beings without being straight up spied on that, to me, is crossing a very big red line. Anyone who believes for a moment that the information they collect can't be deanonymized is deluding themselves. This is a precursor to some straight-up Orwellian evil.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  > Anyone who believes for a moment that the information they collect can't be deanonymized is deluding themselves. This is a precursor to some straight-up Orwellian evil. What are you visualizing? I get it we need to ensure our privacy and that in these times we lost civil liberties that never again reappear, but I'm wondering what you're thinking with "some straight-up Orwellian evil".
  - thefounder 7y ago
    http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Orwellian http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Orwellian
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      No, 1984 is a whole list of dysfunction. If you're saying that "if this happens then the book will happen", that's foolish and alarmist. This isn't going to lead directly to the two minute hate. I get that it possibly puts us on that path, but saying "if you invent fire you're going to end up at Fahrenheit 451" seems dishonest.
  - Proziam 7y ago
    'Citizen, we see that you have been assembling and have fined you $1,000 for the greater good' "But I need money for rent so I was just selling all my worldly possessions!" (Nice Version) 'Citizen, you now owe us taxes.' (Less Nice Version) 'Citizen, you engaged in criminal commerce and we now imprison you and take your money/property' This may not be normal or have much precedent in Canada, but there is precedent for the entire above scenario in the US. [0]Las Vegas has now implemented fines for any non-essential business that remains open. Basically a straight-up death sentence for most small businesses who are living paycheck to paycheck. [1] And police seizures are a common, well-known, and certifiably evil practice in the US. It's difficult for me to imagine how this power could not end up being abused by someone. [0]https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronavirus/las-vegas-police-start-compliance-checks-on-defiant-nonessential-businesses/article_f0620396-6b16-11ea-9ceb-ab35bf40ec49.html https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronavirus/las-vegas-police-start... [1]https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in-depth/news/taken/2019/01/27/civil-forfeiture-south-carolina-police-property-seizures-taken-exclusive-investigation/2457838002/ https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in-depth/news/taken/2019/01...
zelphirkalt 7y ago
Imagine this happening under normal circumstances. Now that they did it, the threshold will be lower to do it again next time, when they see it fit. The future will show, whether it will be appropriate, when they do it next time.
- BitwiseFool 7y ago
  People might accuse you of using a Slippery Slope fallacy, but in reality they're just establishing a precedent. And the justification will get weaker each time.
  - zelphirkalt 7y ago
    You are right, not water tight argumenting on my part. I wonder, whether slippery slope is OK, if the action in reality can be seen as a slippery slope that society is probably sliding down.
- usr01398132 7y ago
  Using cell phone location data to track users isn't at all new in North America & Europe. Adtech companies have been doing since the 2000s. Having worked at a digital signage company I can tell you that all digital out of home advertising companies use cell phone tower location data to calculate impressions (views) for their billboards. Note this isn't limited to digital outdoor ads, static (posters) ads also use the same location data to determine the amount of impressions they get. This metric is usually required so that the Advertising companies can bill their customers. It amazes me that so many HN commenters think this type of tracking is new. What you people should be concerned about are the adtech companies that have been doing this with little oversight for at least a decade.
  - zelphirkalt 7y ago
    Hehe, well, perhaps it's not really new, but the justification and doing it in broad daylight might be new. The attempt to get rid of the shadiness factor of such practice. Also perhaps not by the government or Canadian government. I'd guess that most of HN knows, that this has been done before. Outrage or indignation does not require thinking, that something is a new practice.
bb123 7y ago
I think part of the problem is that the hacker news community has to accept that we are in minority in terms of opinion on this. The general public is either okay with it or doesn't care. Anyone who has tried to explain this to a non-tech person knows what I mean.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
motohagiography 7y ago
How long do they get this information, and who has access to it? The privacy culture in Canada is different from that of the US or Germany, with some major privacy players today having close law enforcement and intelligence community backgrounds. For example, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Civil Liberties in the article also happens to be a former provincial attorney general responsible for some pretty hysterical anti-civil liberties regulations in regard to law enforcement discretion (automatic roadside vehicle seizure for speeding, "pit bull" ban), in addition to his ideological anti-firearms advocacy in a country with some of the strictest and most byzantine gun laws on the planet. The federal privacy commissioner is a former federal assistant deputy attorney general which arguably makes him a member of the intelligence community. Regardless of your political leanings, it's hard to make the case that former prosecutors and intelligence community members make credible privacy advocates. In Canada, there is a popular contempt for the notion of "freedom," in the American sense, as the concept implies there may be limits to bureaucratic remit and to the total sovereign power of the crown. Such freedom is a myth only the young or uneducated believe in. There are a few rights carved out of the total dominion of the crown, but those are exceptions. It's a very different culture here. In terms of using cell tracking data to manage the pandemic, the case for what difference the data would makes needs to be clearer. Leveraging the crisis to get the data ("squeezing the toothpaste out of the tube") is standard bureaucracy playbook here, and everyone should be skeptical of it. "Because crisis!" is not a reason or justification people should accept for anything, and we should push back on anyone who seems to be leveraging hysteria and who won't provide a sound and transparent rationale with clear limits.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
lucidone 7y ago
I am Canadian, and I considered myself an advocate of privacy up until COVID-19 made me realize I'd pretty much give up all my civil liberties if it meant my immunocompromised parents were less likely to fall ill and potentially die as a consequence. Trudeau can enact marshal law for all I care, I just don't want my folks to die.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  I think you have to accept that your parents are going to die one day, whether we contain COVID-19 or not. But you and your (future?) kids are going to have to live with the political consequences of this crisis for many years to come.
  - dot1x 7y ago
    This is typical short-term thinking. Let the guy rot.
  - lucidone 7y ago
    The other side of that argument being that people in the future can always fight for their rights, whereas we can never get back lost time with our loved ones.
    - mrlanderson 7y ago
      Such a selfish argument
      - lucidone 7y ago
        You're absolutely right. Thankfully, in reality, I don't think the measures taken will be as strong as dismantling our civil liberties. However, if the dichotomy was either our civil rights at large (expand this to the economy, whatever you want) or the lives of the sick and elderly, I'd opt for saving human lives every time. I even think there is a Trek episode about this. Not very utilitarian of me I realize, but it's a trade off I'd make without hesitation.
arkadiyt 7y ago
Similar / more invasive product being sold by NSO Group (yes, that NSO Group) to a dozen governments around the world: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-17/surveillance-company-nso-supplying-data-analysis-to-stop-virus https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-17/surveilla...
bearcobra 7y ago
It should be noted that the city came out and denied that this was actually happening or that they've received any data [Paywalled] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-toronto-mayors-office-denies-use-of-cellphone-tracking-data/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-toronto-may...
- marketgod 7y ago
  Yeah Tory denied it on live TV as well. Some things to be aware of are that Tory was the CEO of Rogers previously. Maybe he knew which data they have available and since it was a company owned by a family friend he could get whatever he wants. Michael Bryant while allegeldy drunk rammed a bicycle off the road on purpose (self-defense) and killed the guy. His wife was in the car as well and they got separated a few months later. He was also the previous Attorney General in Ontario.
- bitminer 7y ago
  The logic.co first reported this afaik and now reporting details of the"walk back". (What a strange term for admitting a lie.)
lifeformed 7y ago
It feels like everyone here is treating it as an all or nothing thing. People are acting like if we allow the government to do this, then the next step surely can only be total state surveillance. Can't we come up with some reasonable balance where we can give up some privacy during extreme situations, but have strong safeguards in place to keep it emergency only?
- justanotherc 7y ago
  If you allow a precedent to be set it can be very difficult to get the genie back in the bottle...
hypertexthero 7y ago
> QA: What, as an ordinary citizen now, frightens you most, would you wish, most could happen, to stop the panic at least. > YH: I think the worse thing is the disunity we see in the world, the lack of cooperation and coordination we see between different countries, and the lack of trust, both between countries, and also between the population and the government. ¶ This is basically the payday for what we've been seeing in the last few years, with the epidemic of fake news, and with the deterioration of international relations. ¶ If you compare this for example with the 2008 financial crisis — which is of course a crisis of a different kind, but there are similarities — in 2008 you had responsible adults in the world which took a leadership position, rallied the world behind them, and prevented the worst outcomes. But over the last four years basically we've seen a rapid deterioration of trust in the international system. The country which was the leader previously, both in the 2008 financial crisis and also in the last big epidemic, the Ebola epidemic in 2014 — and that country is the United States — now it is not taking any kind of leadership position. Actually since 2016, the current administration has made it very clear that the US has resigned its role as world leader, it made it very clear that the US has no longer any friends in the world, it has only interests. And even if now, the US — which is not doing so far — but even if it will try to assume a leadership position, nobody would follow a leader who's motto is “Me first.” ¶ So what really frightens me is the lack of leadership and cooperation, and what people should realize, is that the spread of the epidemic in any one country threatens the entire world because of the danger that if we don't contain this in time, the virus will evolve — that is maybe one of the worse problems with this kind of epidemic — is actually a rapid evolution of the virus. We saw it before with the 2014 Ebola epidemic. It actually started, the Ebola epidemic started, with one genetic mutation in one virus in one person in West Africa, which turned Ebola from a relatively rare disease into a raging epidemic, because this single mutation increased the contagiousness of the virus four times. ¶ Now this could be happening right now, somewhere in Iran, or in Italy, or in anywhere else, and wherever it happens, it endangers the entire world. ¶ Humanity needs to close ranks against the viruses. Yuval Harari then goes on to describe the second thing that scares him the most: The rise of authoritarianism through governments taking advantage of peoples’ fear about the virus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwusbaOFr2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwusbaOFr2Y
zzo38computer 7y ago
I do not have a cell phone; since some people do not have a cell phone (or may temporarily have loss of communication for whatever reason, including airplane mode, loss of battery power, leaving it at home, etc) it may not work. But what if someone has more than one cell phone?
totony 7y ago
Obscene, the upsides of this are nothing compared to it's impact on freedom and in normalizing such behavior. I have trouble comprehending how governements (and people) think so little of individual freedom that as soon as a crisis hits their first instinct is giving it all up
Scoundreller 7y ago
Jokes on them. Rogers struggles to make/receive phone calls during peak hours for the past week.
xenospn 7y ago
As does Israel, as does Norway.
ulucs 7y ago
They should have taken timely precautions instead of trying to go all out after they found out the cat was out of the bag. I find it apalling that they took forever to cancel Chinese/Iranian/Italian flights, but now it's time to disregard all civil liberties.
wtcac 7y ago
I am finding it very interesting to read the disparaging reaction to this measure by the Canadian government, and the reaction to a similar measure taken by the Israeli government. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22592168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22592168

103 points by colinprince 7y ago

>totally anonymous cellphone location information that's a bold claim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak |https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize#Privacy_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize#Privacy_concerns and so on and so forth, these data sets are hard to truly anonymize

ctrl-j 7y ago
Only because they capture a lot of data and keep the row level information. If you just grabbed clustered coordinates without any device information there wouldn't be enough data to be able to reconstruct identity information.
- Cpoll 7y ago
  There's a lot of ways it can go wrong though: - If they provide a unique ID with each coordinate. Now you can deanonymize by correlation - If they provide a coordinate for every used in the system. Now you know where everyone is - From the above, if the data is presented in frequent intervals, you can correlate coordinates with last know coordinates and start drawing paths I'd be comfortable if the request is "give us a coordinate for every area that has more than N users in it" for some large N. Filtering out apartment buildings shouldn't be too difficult.
  - zelphirkalt 7y ago
    > every useD in the system Funny typo, or perhaps not? Reminds me of Stallman talking about Facebook and switching out "users" with "useds".

bluehazed 7y ago

As the article says, this isn't legal, and violates Provincial Privacy law.

usr01398132 7y ago
These laws have been violated by DOOH companies for the past decade. Yet no one really talks about the private sector tracking people without consent. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22685912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22685912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-home_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-home_advertising
- refurb 7y ago
  People talk about the private sector violating privacy all the time. The gov't doing it is even worse since they have the power to put you in jail and take all your possessions if they want to. Private companies don't.

Proziam 7y ago

You can dislike the behavior all you want, and call it out as being immoral and stupid. You can fine people if they take risks that cause harm to others. But if you get in the way of the freedom to assemble and communicate like human beings without being straight up spied on that, to me, is crossing a very big red line. Anyone who believes for a moment that the information they collect can't be deanonymized is deluding themselves. This is a precursor to some straight-up Orwellian evil.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
> Anyone who believes for a moment that the information they collect can't be deanonymized is deluding themselves. This is a precursor to some straight-up Orwellian evil. What are you visualizing? I get it we need to ensure our privacy and that in these times we lost civil liberties that never again reappear, but I'm wondering what you're thinking with "some straight-up Orwellian evil".
- thefounder 7y ago
  http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Orwellian http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Orwellian
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    No, 1984 is a whole list of dysfunction. If you're saying that "if this happens then the book will happen", that's foolish and alarmist. This isn't going to lead directly to the two minute hate. I get that it possibly puts us on that path, but saying "if you invent fire you're going to end up at Fahrenheit 451" seems dishonest.
- Proziam 7y ago
  'Citizen, we see that you have been assembling and have fined you $1,000 for the greater good' "But I need money for rent so I was just selling all my worldly possessions!" (Nice Version) 'Citizen, you now owe us taxes.' (Less Nice Version) 'Citizen, you engaged in criminal commerce and we now imprison you and take your money/property' This may not be normal or have much precedent in Canada, but there is precedent for the entire above scenario in the US. [0]Las Vegas has now implemented fines for any non-essential business that remains open. Basically a straight-up death sentence for most small businesses who are living paycheck to paycheck. [1] And police seizures are a common, well-known, and certifiably evil practice in the US. It's difficult for me to imagine how this power could not end up being abused by someone. [0]https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronavirus/las-vegas-police-start-compliance-checks-on-defiant-nonessential-businesses/article_f0620396-6b16-11ea-9ceb-ab35bf40ec49.html https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronavirus/las-vegas-police-start... [1]https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in-depth/news/taken/2019/01/27/civil-forfeiture-south-carolina-police-property-seizures-taken-exclusive-investigation/2457838002/ https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in-depth/news/taken/2019/01...

zelphirkalt 7y ago

Imagine this happening under normal circumstances. Now that they did it, the threshold will be lower to do it again next time, when they see it fit. The future will show, whether it will be appropriate, when they do it next time.

BitwiseFool 7y ago
People might accuse you of using a Slippery Slope fallacy, but in reality they're just establishing a precedent. And the justification will get weaker each time.
- zelphirkalt 7y ago
  You are right, not water tight argumenting on my part. I wonder, whether slippery slope is OK, if the action in reality can be seen as a slippery slope that society is probably sliding down.
usr01398132 7y ago
Using cell phone location data to track users isn't at all new in North America & Europe. Adtech companies have been doing since the 2000s. Having worked at a digital signage company I can tell you that all digital out of home advertising companies use cell phone tower location data to calculate impressions (views) for their billboards. Note this isn't limited to digital outdoor ads, static (posters) ads also use the same location data to determine the amount of impressions they get. This metric is usually required so that the Advertising companies can bill their customers. It amazes me that so many HN commenters think this type of tracking is new. What you people should be concerned about are the adtech companies that have been doing this with little oversight for at least a decade.
- zelphirkalt 7y ago
  Hehe, well, perhaps it's not really new, but the justification and doing it in broad daylight might be new. The attempt to get rid of the shadiness factor of such practice. Also perhaps not by the government or Canadian government. I'd guess that most of HN knows, that this has been done before. Outrage or indignation does not require thinking, that something is a new practice.

bb123 7y ago

I think part of the problem is that the hacker news community has to accept that we are in minority in terms of opinion on this. The general public is either okay with it or doesn't care. Anyone who has tried to explain this to a non-tech person knows what I mean.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

motohagiography 7y ago

How long do they get this information, and who has access to it? The privacy culture in Canada is different from that of the US or Germany, with some major privacy players today having close law enforcement and intelligence community backgrounds. For example, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Civil Liberties in the article also happens to be a former provincial attorney general responsible for some pretty hysterical anti-civil liberties regulations in regard to law enforcement discretion (automatic roadside vehicle seizure for speeding, "pit bull" ban), in addition to his ideological anti-firearms advocacy in a country with some of the strictest and most byzantine gun laws on the planet. The federal privacy commissioner is a former federal assistant deputy attorney general which arguably makes him a member of the intelligence community. Regardless of your political leanings, it's hard to make the case that former prosecutors and intelligence community members make credible privacy advocates. In Canada, there is a popular contempt for the notion of "freedom," in the American sense, as the concept implies there may be limits to bureaucratic remit and to the total sovereign power of the crown. Such freedom is a myth only the young or uneducated believe in. There are a few rights carved out of the total dominion of the crown, but those are exceptions. It's a very different culture here. In terms of using cell tracking data to manage the pandemic, the case for what difference the data would makes needs to be clearer. Leveraging the crisis to get the data ("squeezing the toothpaste out of the tube") is standard bureaucracy playbook here, and everyone should be skeptical of it. "Because crisis!" is not a reason or justification people should accept for anything, and we should push back on anyone who seems to be leveraging hysteria and who won't provide a sound and transparent rationale with clear limits.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

lucidone 7y ago

I am Canadian, and I considered myself an advocate of privacy up until COVID-19 made me realize I'd pretty much give up all my civil liberties if it meant my immunocompromised parents were less likely to fall ill and potentially die as a consequence. Trudeau can enact marshal law for all I care, I just don't want my folks to die.

AlexandrB 7y ago
I think you have to accept that your parents are going to die one day, whether we contain COVID-19 or not. But you and your (future?) kids are going to have to live with the political consequences of this crisis for many years to come.
- dot1x 7y ago
  This is typical short-term thinking. Let the guy rot.
- lucidone 7y ago
  The other side of that argument being that people in the future can always fight for their rights, whereas we can never get back lost time with our loved ones.
  - mrlanderson 7y ago
    Such a selfish argument
    - lucidone 7y ago
      You're absolutely right. Thankfully, in reality, I don't think the measures taken will be as strong as dismantling our civil liberties. However, if the dichotomy was either our civil rights at large (expand this to the economy, whatever you want) or the lives of the sick and elderly, I'd opt for saving human lives every time. I even think there is a Trek episode about this. Not very utilitarian of me I realize, but it's a trade off I'd make without hesitation.

arkadiyt 7y ago

Similar / more invasive product being sold by NSO Group (yes, that NSO Group) to a dozen governments around the world: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-17/surveillance-company-nso-supplying-data-analysis-to-stop-virus https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-17/surveilla...

bearcobra 7y ago

It should be noted that the city came out and denied that this was actually happening or that they've received any data [Paywalled] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-toronto-mayors-office-denies-use-of-cellphone-tracking-data/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-toronto-may...

marketgod 7y ago
Yeah Tory denied it on live TV as well. Some things to be aware of are that Tory was the CEO of Rogers previously. Maybe he knew which data they have available and since it was a company owned by a family friend he could get whatever he wants. Michael Bryant while allegeldy drunk rammed a bicycle off the road on purpose (self-defense) and killed the guy. His wife was in the car as well and they got separated a few months later. He was also the previous Attorney General in Ontario.
bitminer 7y ago
The logic.co first reported this afaik and now reporting details of the"walk back". (What a strange term for admitting a lie.)

lifeformed 7y ago

It feels like everyone here is treating it as an all or nothing thing. People are acting like if we allow the government to do this, then the next step surely can only be total state surveillance. Can't we come up with some reasonable balance where we can give up some privacy during extreme situations, but have strong safeguards in place to keep it emergency only?

justanotherc 7y ago
If you allow a precedent to be set it can be very difficult to get the genie back in the bottle...

hypertexthero 7y ago

> QA: What, as an ordinary citizen now, frightens you most, would you wish, most could happen, to stop the panic at least. > YH: I think the worse thing is the disunity we see in the world, the lack of cooperation and coordination we see between different countries, and the lack of trust, both between countries, and also between the population and the government. ¶ This is basically the payday for what we've been seeing in the last few years, with the epidemic of fake news, and with the deterioration of international relations. ¶ If you compare this for example with the 2008 financial crisis — which is of course a crisis of a different kind, but there are similarities — in 2008 you had responsible adults in the world which took a leadership position, rallied the world behind them, and prevented the worst outcomes. But over the last four years basically we've seen a rapid deterioration of trust in the international system. The country which was the leader previously, both in the 2008 financial crisis and also in the last big epidemic, the Ebola epidemic in 2014 — and that country is the United States — now it is not taking any kind of leadership position. Actually since 2016, the current administration has made it very clear that the US has resigned its role as world leader, it made it very clear that the US has no longer any friends in the world, it has only interests. And even if now, the US — which is not doing so far — but even if it will try to assume a leadership position, nobody would follow a leader who's motto is “Me first.” ¶ So what really frightens me is the lack of leadership and cooperation, and what people should realize, is that the spread of the epidemic in any one country threatens the entire world because of the danger that if we don't contain this in time, the virus will evolve — that is maybe one of the worse problems with this kind of epidemic — is actually a rapid evolution of the virus. We saw it before with the 2014 Ebola epidemic. It actually started, the Ebola epidemic started, with one genetic mutation in one virus in one person in West Africa, which turned Ebola from a relatively rare disease into a raging epidemic, because this single mutation increased the contagiousness of the virus four times. ¶ Now this could be happening right now, somewhere in Iran, or in Italy, or in anywhere else, and wherever it happens, it endangers the entire world. ¶ Humanity needs to close ranks against the viruses. Yuval Harari then goes on to describe the second thing that scares him the most: The rise of authoritarianism through governments taking advantage of peoples’ fear about the virus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwusbaOFr2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwusbaOFr2Y

zzo38computer 7y ago

I do not have a cell phone; since some people do not have a cell phone (or may temporarily have loss of communication for whatever reason, including airplane mode, loss of battery power, leaving it at home, etc) it may not work. But what if someone has more than one cell phone?

totony 7y ago

Obscene, the upsides of this are nothing compared to it's impact on freedom and in normalizing such behavior. I have trouble comprehending how governements (and people) think so little of individual freedom that as soon as a crisis hits their first instinct is giving it all up

Scoundreller 7y ago

Jokes on them. Rogers struggles to make/receive phone calls during peak hours for the past week.

xenospn 7y ago

As does Israel, as does Norway.

ulucs 7y ago

They should have taken timely precautions instead of trying to go all out after they found out the cat was out of the bag. I find it apalling that they took forever to cancel Chinese/Iranian/Italian flights, but now it's time to disregard all civil liberties.

wtcac 7y ago

I am finding it very interesting to read the disparaging reaction to this measure by the Canadian government, and the reaction to a similar measure taken by the Israeli government. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22592168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22592168