3 ms·

How is that positive? They have great engineers, great infrastructure and a lot of money. It would be great if they could help.

by maps7 7y ago

mellow2020 7y ago
When everybody acts as if they're already infected, and so is everyone else, how is this helping?
- maps7 7y ago
  Everybody is not acting like that. I meant help in any way that would benefit everyone.
  - mellow2020 7y ago
    > Everybody is not acting like that. The vast majority does. > I meant help in any way that would benefit everyone. And I'm asking how that would help. So far, every single proponent of "surveillance because covid" I asked this avoided the question. It's also pretty incredible how you split hairs about "everybody" in the first sentence, and then talk about something that will help "everyone" in the second, without even saying how.
    - maps7 7y ago
      > The vast majority does. How can you say that? The Netherlands still has people going to cafes. The UK is talking about banning outside exercise. Even if you can point to a figure saying people are moving less and adhering to their government's guidelines I don't think it follows that you can say the majority of people are acting like they are infected. As for the second part, by definition, if those companies actions benefit everyone.. it would help. I didn't say and I don't know how they would do that. Since this conversation started, it looks like Google has used their great engineers, great infrastructure and lots of money to publish movement reports. This might feed into Government decisions and hopefully will be a benefit for "everyone". Check it out here: https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/ https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - mellow2020 7y ago
        > How can you say that? The Netherlands still has people going to cafes. Because vast majority isn't, certainly not in Germany. I can say that because I have been experiencing it for weeks now. > Even if you can point to a figure saying people are moving less and adhering to their government's guidelines I don't think it follows that you can say the majority of people are acting like they are infected. Those guidelines to after entail acting like people oneself might be infected. That's why people are to keep distance from anybody, never ever touch their face while out and about, and wash their hands thoroughly when they come home (and I might add, also before they leave home). > As for the second part, by definition, if those companies actions benefit everyone.. it would help. I ask how surveillance help, and you say "if it helps, it helps by definition". That is hardly an answer. Let's say 10% simply don't take it seriously. If they don't keep distance from anyone out of the 90%, those people will know. In Bavaria, someone already went to jail for 8 days because of exactly that, for not paying heed despite repeated warnings. There is no surveillance necessary for that because -- by definition -- the only way for those 10% to "secretly mingle" would be with other people of those 10%. Movement tracking also doesn't tell us anything about if people cough right at other people or into their elbow, or if they wash their hands when coming home. Mere distance itself isn't saying all that much. As for the Google thing: super general, anonymized "where do people move around how much" is something else entirely than the location data of all indiviuals. > What data is included in the calculationdepends on user settings, connectivity, andwhether it meets our privacy threshold. If theprivacy threshold isn’t met (when somewhereisn’t busy enough to ensure anonymity) wedon’t show a change for the day. That isn't the kind of surveillance we are talking about, like the kind of German justice ministry previously rejected, for example. Information that harms nobody, violates no rights, is 100% anonymous, doesn't even have to be useful for me to have no problem with the collection of. Palantir on the other hand "declined to comment", so you give me something completely different from Google. If what Palantir have in mind is so benign and useful, why don't they proudly explain it? It's not like CoV19 could overhear that and adjust, like criminals or terrorists might. And from a PR perspective, declining to comment is the ONE predictably bad move here. If they want to help, if they have something helpful to bring to the table, why aren't they open about it? With something like this, they should have had their story straight before even anyone asked them, before they even finalized their offers to those governments. This is nowhere good enough. That isn't "the second part", that is the main issue.

How is that positive? They have great engineers, great infrastructure and a lot of money. It would be great if they could help.

by maps7 7y ago

How is that positive? They have great engineers, great infrastructure and a lot of money. It would be great if they could help.

mellow2020 7y ago

When everybody acts as if they're already infected, and so is everyone else, how is this helping?

maps7 7y ago
Everybody is not acting like that. I meant help in any way that would benefit everyone.
- mellow2020 7y ago
  > Everybody is not acting like that. The vast majority does. > I meant help in any way that would benefit everyone. And I'm asking how that would help. So far, every single proponent of "surveillance because covid" I asked this avoided the question. It's also pretty incredible how you split hairs about "everybody" in the first sentence, and then talk about something that will help "everyone" in the second, without even saying how.
  - maps7 7y ago
    > The vast majority does. How can you say that? The Netherlands still has people going to cafes. The UK is talking about banning outside exercise. Even if you can point to a figure saying people are moving less and adhering to their government's guidelines I don't think it follows that you can say the majority of people are acting like they are infected. As for the second part, by definition, if those companies actions benefit everyone.. it would help. I didn't say and I don't know how they would do that. Since this conversation started, it looks like Google has used their great engineers, great infrastructure and lots of money to publish movement reports. This might feed into Government decisions and hopefully will be a benefit for "everyone". Check it out here: https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/ https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - mellow2020 7y ago
      > How can you say that? The Netherlands still has people going to cafes. Because vast majority isn't, certainly not in Germany. I can say that because I have been experiencing it for weeks now. > Even if you can point to a figure saying people are moving less and adhering to their government's guidelines I don't think it follows that you can say the majority of people are acting like they are infected. Those guidelines to after entail acting like people oneself might be infected. That's why people are to keep distance from anybody, never ever touch their face while out and about, and wash their hands thoroughly when they come home (and I might add, also before they leave home). > As for the second part, by definition, if those companies actions benefit everyone.. it would help. I ask how surveillance help, and you say "if it helps, it helps by definition". That is hardly an answer. Let's say 10% simply don't take it seriously. If they don't keep distance from anyone out of the 90%, those people will know. In Bavaria, someone already went to jail for 8 days because of exactly that, for not paying heed despite repeated warnings. There is no surveillance necessary for that because -- by definition -- the only way for those 10% to "secretly mingle" would be with other people of those 10%. Movement tracking also doesn't tell us anything about if people cough right at other people or into their elbow, or if they wash their hands when coming home. Mere distance itself isn't saying all that much. As for the Google thing: super general, anonymized "where do people move around how much" is something else entirely than the location data of all indiviuals. > What data is included in the calculationdepends on user settings, connectivity, andwhether it meets our privacy threshold. If theprivacy threshold isn’t met (when somewhereisn’t busy enough to ensure anonymity) wedon’t show a change for the day. That isn't the kind of surveillance we are talking about, like the kind of German justice ministry previously rejected, for example. Information that harms nobody, violates no rights, is 100% anonymous, doesn't even have to be useful for me to have no problem with the collection of. Palantir on the other hand "declined to comment", so you give me something completely different from Google. If what Palantir have in mind is so benign and useful, why don't they proudly explain it? It's not like CoV19 could overhear that and adjust, like criminals or terrorists might. And from a PR perspective, declining to comment is the ONE predictably bad move here. If they want to help, if they have something helpful to bring to the table, why aren't they open about it? With something like this, they should have had their story straight before even anyone asked them, before they even finalized their offers to those governments. This is nowhere good enough. That isn't "the second part", that is the main issue.