3 ms·

This is a false dichotomy and assumes there are only two choices: - not handling the pandemic - tracking the population You can get information about people

This is a false dichotomy and assumes there are only two choices: - not handling the pandemic - tracking the population You can get information about people assembling in other ways: - helicopters - intel gathering - cops and army patrolling dressed as civilian - create groups of citizen in town responsible to patrolling And probably many I don't know about. Then you add to that: keeping to communicate with the public, testing a lot, providing masks, etc. The fact you are using this argument shows how much powerful the culture about "the end justify the mean" and "trusts the authority to deal with this" is. I remember the first time I saw Jack Bauer on TV decapitating a terrorist in 24 to get an information. I though, "wow, they are really creating a new normal here". That's what it is about: creating a new normal. And pretending there is no other choice, while nobody is trying to provide any.

tastroder 7y ago
There's no pretending there is no other choice, this already is a proposal for that "other choice". Contact tracing certainly isn't new, it's a required step in tackling many infectious diseases and will happen whether or not it is assisted by digital means. The technical alternatives to the tiny part proposed here are coarse and many of them more invasive in terms of privacy. This proposal is specifically designed to prevent tracking populations, it also limits the number of necessary off switches to the two OS vendors. What exactly is the part of the "new normal" you are worried about here? I hope it's not people walking around with tracking beacons in their pocket, they already do that without giving it a single thought.
vsl 7y ago
It’s not about “people assembling” at all. It’s about individual prolonged contacts, possibly accidental (mass transit), with an infected person, allowing much more targeted (as opposed to current blunt tools like shelter at home orders) suppression of the disease.

tastroder 7y ago

There's no pretending there is no other choice, this already is a proposal for that "other choice". Contact tracing certainly isn't new, it's a required step in tackling many infectious diseases and will happen whether or not it is assisted by digital means. The technical alternatives to the tiny part proposed here are coarse and many of them more invasive in terms of privacy. This proposal is specifically designed to prevent tracking populations, it also limits the number of necessary off switches to the two OS vendors. What exactly is the part of the "new normal" you are worried about here? I hope it's not people walking around with tracking beacons in their pocket, they already do that without giving it a single thought.

vsl 7y ago

It’s not about “people assembling” at all. It’s about individual prolonged contacts, possibly accidental (mass transit), with an infected person, allowing much more targeted (as opposed to current blunt tools like shelter at home orders) suppression of the disease.