6 ms·

Voluntary compliance for public health today; mandatory compliance by government edict tomorrow -- or we flag your account and you're prohibited from buying any

by mikece 7y ago

Voluntary compliance for public health today; mandatory compliance by government edict tomorrow -- or we flag your account and you're prohibited from buying anything. And what if I chose to stop using a smart phone and just use a flip phone that doesn't have Bluetooth? Am I a de facto enemy of public health (or just public enemy)? Anyone else see this as a MASSIVE slippery slope with too much potential for exploitation?

2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
This was my first thought. Feels like an NSA goal, to build a web of association for everyone in the country.
- mikece 7y ago
  That's what makes no sense at all: the CIA and NSA have been running social network graph systems for years; they know who talks to whom and what the social circles are. The only thing this does is answer who gets within proximity of another... something the NSA and others can probably do already with pervasive video surveillance and biometric identification. This project seems like a massive overreach and I won't be taking part, even if it means pulling the SIM from my iPhone and using a flip phone until sanity returns (or for the rest of my life).
  - taborj 7y ago
    I have several wrenches in my toolbox. But if someone is going to give me a new one, I'm gonna accept it. That's the same idea here; sure, maybe the CIA and NSA already have the capability. But what's the harm in having it twice? There's actually benefits from the aspect of checking one against the other, not to mention one may reveal something the other doesn't. I'm not saying this is what will happen. I'm simply saying that power seeks more power.
cosmodisk 7y ago
I absolutely do so. Because of the current virus situation, there will be many shady laws and practices passed with a simple excuse. https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/fhkcw8/what_are_we_all_missing_right_now_because_it_gets/ https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/fhkcw8/what_are_...
mtgx 7y ago
Absolutely. "Anti-tracers" will be called the "new anti-vaxxers" and it will likely happen very soon, too (within a few short years) or when the next pandemic happens (which would also be in a few short years).
DagAgren 7y ago
This system goes to quite some lengths to preserve privacy. If you are going to attack it, you need to actually address what it does and explain why you don't think that is sufficient.
- joekrill 7y ago
  _This_ particular version of the system does, yes. But the next iteration may slightly weaken the privacy for some "legitimate" reason. And the next version slightly more. Then just a bit more. All for seemingly legitimate reasons. That's the slippery slope.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    That's not a very impressive slippery slope if we've just concluded that the first step of it is horizontal. If this system goes to some lengths to preserve privacy, slippery slope argument doesn't really apply.
    - taborj 7y ago
      That's a false sense of security. Change often starts with a lateral move, but one closer to the slope being acceptable.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Great. Then we should keep an eye out for the actual thing that's down the slope. Forgoing useful technologies because a slope exists is like refusing to mine coal because the uranium nearby could some day be used to build atomic bombs.
        drivingmenuts 7y ago
        Neither of your example minerals are particularly healthy for humans, nor can they be made so without extreme efforts.
IAmEveryone 7y ago
"Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy. It's right there alongside "appeal to authority" and "confirmation bias", to name two examples people somehow tend to remember far easier. It's a fallacy because it applies to everything: "Now, they're just requiring cars to emit less CO2[0]. Next, they'll prohibit breathing!" This program goes out of its way to achieve provable anonymity. That is, in fact, the only reason Google and Apple are needs to implement this. Google Maps has actual location data, with similar precision at least in cities. That data has been there for sliding/skating governments to grab for years now. It's on servers, where it's easier to get to than data on your phone, legally. And location data is far more valuable than "X and Y came within 5 minutes at least once in the three days beginning April 15th". If all that doesn't convince, rest assured it will convince the public. As would anything, really, because they already see this pretty clearly. With that in mind, consider that going to the barricades for privacy now means certain failure on this issue, and possibly lasting repetitional damage for the cause. [0]: One wishes...
shadowgovt 7y ago
In the US at least, I think you just argued exactly how the slippery slope isn't a slippery slope. The US government is never going to spring for getting every American a smartphone.
- drivingmenuts 7y ago
  The government requires auto insurance for every driver without paying a cent. They just make it mandatory and leave you to figure out how to pay for it.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    America almost had a Constitutional crisis over whether making people who don't have health insurance pay more taxes is allowed. I don't think the Fed will have the authority to mandate purchase of a particular class of phone when another class does the job just as well.

by mikece 7y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago

This was my first thought. Feels like an NSA goal, to build a web of association for everyone in the country.

mikece 7y ago
That's what makes no sense at all: the CIA and NSA have been running social network graph systems for years; they know who talks to whom and what the social circles are. The only thing this does is answer who gets within proximity of another... something the NSA and others can probably do already with pervasive video surveillance and biometric identification. This project seems like a massive overreach and I won't be taking part, even if it means pulling the SIM from my iPhone and using a flip phone until sanity returns (or for the rest of my life).
- taborj 7y ago
  I have several wrenches in my toolbox. But if someone is going to give me a new one, I'm gonna accept it. That's the same idea here; sure, maybe the CIA and NSA already have the capability. But what's the harm in having it twice? There's actually benefits from the aspect of checking one against the other, not to mention one may reveal something the other doesn't. I'm not saying this is what will happen. I'm simply saying that power seeks more power.

cosmodisk 7y ago

I absolutely do so. Because of the current virus situation, there will be many shady laws and practices passed with a simple excuse. https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/fhkcw8/what_are_we_all_missing_right_now_because_it_gets/ https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/fhkcw8/what_are_...

mtgx 7y ago

Absolutely. "Anti-tracers" will be called the "new anti-vaxxers" and it will likely happen very soon, too (within a few short years) or when the next pandemic happens (which would also be in a few short years).

DagAgren 7y ago

This system goes to quite some lengths to preserve privacy. If you are going to attack it, you need to actually address what it does and explain why you don't think that is sufficient.

joekrill 7y ago
_This_ particular version of the system does, yes. But the next iteration may slightly weaken the privacy for some "legitimate" reason. And the next version slightly more. Then just a bit more. All for seemingly legitimate reasons. That's the slippery slope.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  That's not a very impressive slippery slope if we've just concluded that the first step of it is horizontal. If this system goes to some lengths to preserve privacy, slippery slope argument doesn't really apply.
  - taborj 7y ago
    That's a false sense of security. Change often starts with a lateral move, but one closer to the slope being acceptable.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Great. Then we should keep an eye out for the actual thing that's down the slope. Forgoing useful technologies because a slope exists is like refusing to mine coal because the uranium nearby could some day be used to build atomic bombs.
      - drivingmenuts 7y ago
        Neither of your example minerals are particularly healthy for humans, nor can they be made so without extreme efforts.

IAmEveryone 7y ago

"Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy. It's right there alongside "appeal to authority" and "confirmation bias", to name two examples people somehow tend to remember far easier. It's a fallacy because it applies to everything: "Now, they're just requiring cars to emit less CO2[0]. Next, they'll prohibit breathing!" This program goes out of its way to achieve provable anonymity. That is, in fact, the only reason Google and Apple are needs to implement this. Google Maps has actual location data, with similar precision at least in cities. That data has been there for sliding/skating governments to grab for years now. It's on servers, where it's easier to get to than data on your phone, legally. And location data is far more valuable than "X and Y came within 5 minutes at least once in the three days beginning April 15th". If all that doesn't convince, rest assured it will convince the public. As would anything, really, because they already see this pretty clearly. With that in mind, consider that going to the barricades for privacy now means certain failure on this issue, and possibly lasting repetitional damage for the cause. [0]: One wishes...

shadowgovt 7y ago

In the US at least, I think you just argued exactly how the slippery slope isn't a slippery slope. The US government is never going to spring for getting every American a smartphone.

drivingmenuts 7y ago
The government requires auto insurance for every driver without paying a cent. They just make it mandatory and leave you to figure out how to pay for it.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  America almost had a Constitutional crisis over whether making people who don't have health insurance pay more taxes is allowed. I don't think the Fed will have the authority to mandate purchase of a particular class of phone when another class does the job just as well.