14 ms·

Digital surveillance technologies to fight pandemic must respect human rights

250 points by ericdanielski 7y ago

whitebread 7y ago
Sadly not holding my breath for this to happen in America. After they tracked those spring breaker cell phones with ease, I’m afraid human rights are already being trampled.
- chapium 7y ago
  Proportionate response isn't trampling. Edit: I should flesh this out a bit further. In hindsight, cellphone data should have augmented contact tracing rather than just sitting on the sidelines and drawing maps a week later. In my opinion there is a time and place to wield technological power when there is a collective need. Ethicists can argue where the line is drawn but an existential threat to 2% of the infected seems sufficient, especially given how fast a pandemic spreads.
  - tastroder 7y ago
    Your edit is worth debating, though I doubt there's an easy way to settle the argument between ethical concerns and the efficacy of tracking at phone cell granularity. Most of what I've read in that regard didn't really indicate that particular technological capability makes more sense than an overall lockdown since it can hardly be called targeted. For further context: The example you replied to references this data in the hands of advertisers, with extremely questionable claims about their pseudo anonymization. That just made your comment before the edit less sensible. I believe such a debate might make sense at the level of a government agency, private entities exchanging that data is just a ridiculous idea.
    - Tainnor 7y ago
      Contact tracing via technology doesn't have to be via phone towers or anything like that (I agree those have little value outside of the aggregate). Anonymous tracking solutions via bluetooth that are much more are actively being developed and have also been advocated for by people affiliated with the CCC (as well as epidemiologists).
      - tastroder 7y ago
        I didn't mean to imply that it did, the example this thread built on was just one of cell based tracking.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    If everything else in American politics and government execution worked smoothly and some extra cell phone tracking could have unwrinkled the last wrinkles, I'd maybe give your argument consideration. As it currently stands, getting cell phone data would be like polishing the door knobs while your basement is flooded. There are bigger fish to fry, lower fruits to pick etc etc.
  - keiferski 7y ago
    This kind of opinion is predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint. I.e., it's okay to do wrong to a small number of people if it benefits the overwhelming majority of people. There are plenty of other ethical approaches, many of which would say that the upholding of certain rights is more important than any benefits gained from violating them.
    - NotAnEconomist 7y ago
      To concur: It's not merely predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint, it assumes that we've accurately accounted for costs of the options (eg, second and third order effects) when deciding rather than merely justifying our preferences with biased models. Empirically, the second (biased models) happens considerably more often than the first (accurate accounting) -- to the point that even if you're a utilitarian, you have to admit it doesn't work in practice. You simply can't make the required benefit calculations for utilitarianism. This is something businesses get wrong a lot: their numerical justification is actually a reflection of the biases of their staff, rather than an accurate accounting of the options.
      - Tainnor 7y ago
        The counterpoint to this is that you can't just wait forever before making a decision. At some point, you'll have to do with imprecise data, and for a pandemic that is developing very rapidly, you can't just sit back and do nothing (well you can, but then you have to make an argument for why this is a good option). As to the point of whether utilitarianism is a good ethical framework... well, at least no non-consequentialist ethical framework has ever convinced me. A naïve reading of utilitarianism has its problems, of course, but those can be accounted for; but the classical Kantian conundrum of not being allowed to lie to a murderer seems silly to me. Plus saying "principles matter" has just as many problems as the utilitarian approach, as nobody will be able to agree on those principles.
vinniejames 7y ago
Ed Snowden discussing the topic on Vice: https://youtu.be/k5OAjnveyJo https://youtu.be/k5OAjnveyJo
- zabana 7y ago
  the video is unavailable outside of the US
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    Temporary error maybe? I'm not in the US and can watch it perfectly.
soufron 7y ago
If I might, digital surveillance technologies cannot actually help fight the pandemic. It's a fantasy. What can hep are masks, medicines and good hygiene practices. Everything else is only the use of shock doctrine to push old agendas. If you're interested, that's what I argued in the French newspaper Liberation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.liberation.fr%2Fdebats%2F2020%2F04%2F10%2Fle-contact-tracking-ou-la-generalisation-du-bracelet-electronique-pour-les-citoyens_1784826 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...
- dirtyid 7y ago
  Sadly, effective response to infectious disease throughout history have all added to the authoritarian toolbox to necessarily limit individual freedom because we know individual responsibility does not scale. While individual irresponsibly at scale has calamitous consequences in context of infectious disease. Cordon sanitaire / quarantines in response to disease outbreaks have been the impetus for consolidation of government power. Historically this has been coarse geographic control where regions are locked down or movement of people is restricted for months to years - 160 years between Austria and Ottoman empire. Much like the total shutdown of countries we're seeing now that refuse to adopt more granular control enabled by surveillance technology. Sacrificing privacy to manage individual affects on collective risk is going to be an inevitable component of modern life moving forward if we want to return to any semblance of the old "normal". A normal where most people did not care much about privacy either.
- naringas 7y ago
  sadly, it doesn't matter whether you're right (in a rational-technical sense from a engineering perspective). Fear makes more people react emotionally.
- seedie 7y ago
  When you say cannot actually help fight the pandemic do you have any reason to believe they won't work from a scientific point of view? Sorry if I have missed it, but to me your arguments were privacy issues and the technical difficulties (different platforms, Support) to get an app on enough smartphones to reach the critical number of participants. Don't get me wrong I totally agree, these are things that we first need to find a solution. But your post sounded to me like you have the opinion that contact tracing doesn't work.
bitcharmer 7y ago
I'm even more terrified by what's going on at the not-so-virtual level. In Poland, where I come from they have been exercising a crawling coup d'état and turning the country into a police state. They passed laws that go directly against the constitution, they refuse to postpone presidential elections in early May and they started terrorising whole communities with overwhelming police harassment. They event chose to give a raise to the police and not the healthcare workers. I only hope the EU steps in soon or we'll see Poland drifting towards an authoritarian regime
- eternalban 7y ago
  https://mobile.twitter.com/Thomas_Binder/status/1249069412822417408 https://mobile.twitter.com/Thomas_Binder/status/124906941282... That was in Switzerland. The doctor [1] has a history of challenging establishment narratives and was previously arrested in conjunction with the chemical attacks in Syria. I have read second hand accounts that assert that he was arrested, taken to a mental hospital, and has been released. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Binder2 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Binder2
- altac 7y ago
  In Germany, a lawyer who called for a demonstration against the curfew first had her website taken down and has been put into psychiatry now (no English link, the Welt is decently reputable): https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article207246011/Heidelberg-Aufbegehren-gegen-Corona-Regeln-Anwaeltin-in-Psychiatrie-eingewiesen.html#Comments https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article207246011/Heidelberg-...
  - mtmail 7y ago
    Counter argument: The website takedown was temporary, in the psychiatry she has access to her mobile phone, police issued press releases. She reports in the psychiatry she's safe from 'dark forces' (https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_87699240/corona-polizei-bringt-coronoia-anwaeltin-beate-bahner-in-die-psychiatrie-.html https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_87699240/...). I wouldn't rule out that indeed she suffers persecution mania.
sbhn 7y ago
Surveillance exists for the industry that profits from it. Wake up everybody
Zenst 7y ago
When such things are done to maintain the human right to live then information freedom will take second place in priorities. Yes that sounds dramatic, but is the context that is being overlooked here. Should it be opt-in, should it be opt-out. Well I'm already aware of people who go out and leave their mobile at home, so you could ask that those this is going to need to target will not be targetable.
- monkeynotes 7y ago
  I am keeping an eye on digital passports that may be needed to go grocery shopping, or just go to the park. It's plausible that you will be required to carry your phone, or some kind of digital ID device to check into these places. We are already hearing about immunity passports. I don't want to sound like a nut case, but I can see that once we have this sort of thing as commonplace to deal with Covid it will be expanded and never withdrawn. The phrase "the new normal" is starting to pop up, and I find that terrifying. I am already mourning the life we enjoyed just months ago.
  - jaywalk 7y ago
    This is exactly correct, and half of the population (at least in America) is sitting here and begging the government to take away more of their freedom so they can feel safer. I am terrified of what the future holds.
    - monkeynotes 7y ago
      There is zero doubt in my mind life will never, ever be the same again. We've seen this by example of 9/11. That was one tragic day and daily life changed forever. So many people are looking forward to getting out of lockdown and resuming their lives. I don't think those lives exist any more, and they will not return to us. Whatever is on the other side of this isn't what we had before.
      - zabana 7y ago
        Interesting perspective. In what ways do you think our lives will be changed forever ?
dan-robertson 7y ago
Digital surveillance technologies used to advertise toothpaste, however, should (or at least will) remain largely unregulated and free to do what they want
- bloak 7y ago
  So in some countries a government initiative to track people using mobile electronic devices might lead to greater privacy. We could end up with government-issued phones as an alternative to phones designed and continually updated by foreign corporations. (Though clearly there are lots of ways the story could go.)
  - meowface 7y ago
    Any day of the week, I'd much prefer to be tracked by Google trying to sell me things than have my every action tracked by the government through my government-issued phone. If those are my only two options, give me Google any day.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
If we want to deal with this pandemic and technological tools like tracking apps are deemed essential to that goal then my view is that these tools should be built and deployed with effectiveness in mind, not privacy. The privacy aspect should then be dealt with by enacting stringent time limits on the use of these tools, not by constraining them. Here in Europe I see discussions and arguments that such tools cannot be deployed because they would breach privacy, or that people will refuse to use them for the same reason. I think that this is like arguing about dinner on a sinking ship.
- SCHiM 7y ago
  Human decision making is terrifyingly biased. The fear that currently grips the world and its leaders is perfect cover for leaders bent on a totalitarian streak. 'Doing what is right', 'fighting this and that'. Your own point made here is evidence that you too are at least partially in this state of mind, given that you equate our current situation to being on a sinking ship. A number of questions come to mind: Are we really in such a dire situation? Is compromising on rights justified to get rid of this situation? About 1. Some countries got hit very hard, communities ripped apart and families devastated. That's not even considering the drawn out consequences of the economic downturn. The situation is dire. But on 2, it's much easier: I don't want you or anyone else to know about my stuff. Its nobodies business but my own. I completely opposed to any form of control in the name or for the sake of fighting this. Any technical measure I will oppose, probably quite successfully. I reject the premise that we're able to make effective decisions right now that are not clouded in fear, are not too drastic and can be modeled to effectively respect our rights.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    It's a question of priority, not ideology or naivety or fear. There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear. In the US and Western Europe we are factually on a sinking ship. The economy and society as a whole are sinking. This must stop as soon as possible. If tools like tracking apps allow to reopen sooner while controlling the pandemic then this ought to be the priority. This is a minimal compromise of rights for a limited time only (the 'limited time' part is what ought to be the safeguard). The fear, and frankly paranoia, is not on the side of being in favour of these tools, it is on the side of rejecting them for ideological reasons. It's seeking a pyrrhic victory: "Ah everything collapsed but at least no-one could track me on my commute to my long lost job!".
naringas 7y ago
"""and the first human right is the right to live. therefore, so that we all may live on, you must give up your privacy. It's only so that the appropriate authorities may tack down anybody you may have contacted; and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be quarantined. And frankly they might die, but we do this merely so that the rest of us may live on peacefully and prosper.""" e.g. take this 'and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be quarantined' and swap it out for another historical age statement such as a classic inquisition era "if found to be sinner/heretics/non-believers the church will help them repent" though, in the inquisition era there was no comparable surveillance technology. I just wrote this, but I am not sure whether I agree. I am conflicted. edit: after editing in the inquisiton example, I realized that I disagree (with many reservations) with the entire sentiment of initial triple-quote.
- zulgan 7y ago
  I don't think this is true, the first human right is the right to die, and secondly the right to live. So you can only live a life that allows you to die. For example, if my mother is in a hospital dying from corona, and the system forbids me to see her (despite me taking precautions that I deem fit), I must revolt. This of course sounds like nonsense, and I am also conflicted, but this is my intuition.
  - hestipod 7y ago
    I was recently hospitalized for a suicide attempt due to years of chronic pain and depression as a result. I was not allowed to die. I get no help to live after being dumped back out when "stable" medically. I was not allowed any visitors due to the virus and it was very detrimental to my mental health. Now I am here alone trying to piece together a future. Nobody revolted...and I am powerless to. Frustrates me so much there wasn't help to live...but I am told I have to. Trapped in a room with no doors or windows and on fire. I don't see this "help" everyone says there is to get. Just people wanting thousands of dollars from me that I cannot pay for nonsense.
    - lioeters 7y ago
totalZero 7y ago
Liberty is a human right. Digital surveillance is fundamentally an invasion of liberty, so by its very nature such surveillance is antithetical to human rights.
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  there's many liberties, and they often directly conflict. My liberty to listening to music I like conflicts with my neighbour's liberty to sleep at night. Not saying CCC are wrong here - they're pretty much spot on, as so often - but making sweeping statements like this is doing a disservice to this much-needed discourse.
  - hartator 7y ago
    > My liberty to listening to music I like conflicts with my neighbour's liberty to sleep at night Well use headphones or don’t crank the amp.
  - totalZero 7y ago
    Digital surveillance is a violation of human rights in the same way a policeman cannot enter your house without warrant to observe you and search you. This is one of the oldest principles in modern political thought and it stretches back to at least Semayne's Case in 1604. Your neighbor has a right to sleep in his home. If you blast music, you are disturbing the serenity of his home. That is a different question than the government coming into your private affairs to spy on you. If you really believe that your assertion is applicable, apply it to this circumstance (digital surveillance), rather than setting up a different argument (music and sleep) where your assertion better applies. Your assertion essentially amounts to "all clear principles are bad because they obscure exceptions." First, this is reflexive -- it applies to itself. Second, it is the burden of the exception to prove itself, not the burden of the rule to prove all of its own exceptions; the government needs a reason specific to me in order to observe my private affairs, and in absence of such a warrant I have a blanket protection from those observations.
vinniejames 7y ago
Google and Apple teaming up to enforce tracking at the OS level, very clever indeed: "The Verge: Apple and Google have a clever way of encouraging people to install contact-tracing apps for COVID-19." https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/4/14/21219289/apple-google-contact-tracing-app-android-ios-pros-cons-quarantine-testing https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/4/14/21219289/apple-...
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  In fairness, the government somehow tracked the cell phones of numerous spring breakers. So, I mean, obviously they already have some ability to do the tracking without any changes by google or apple at all. This just makes that ability known to smart phone users.
  - Jagat 7y ago
    They most likely did that through triangulation, which is too coarse for contact tracing.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      But they actually did contact tracing for the spring breakers using whatever method they have now. So either they have another method, or triangulation was good enough for the contact tracing they wanted to do.
messo 7y ago
The good news is that we do not have to sacrifice our (digital) human rights to fight the virus. I was recently made aware of a really simple but effective way of tracking infections without storing data centrally or using positional information (GPS): https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/ https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/
- marcelsalathe 7y ago
  That's correct. DP3T documents and code here: https://github.com/DP-3T/ https://github.com/DP-3T/
  - seedie 7y ago
    Also very interessting to read through the issues of the project
  - TechBro8615 7y ago
    It’s really interesting tech, and a great group of people behind it. But the government doesn’t care for this nuance of what is privacy preserving tech and what is not. For now, maybe at the beginning, privacy will be emphasized. But the important part is conditioning citizens to be okay with the underlying idea of technology assisted self-surveillance, and compliance with notifications on their phone telling them to stay inside. Eventually people will forget about the underlying details and privacy will be deemphasized. “You were okay with TrackingApp 1.0, why wouldn’t you be okay with TrackingApp 2.0?” If we give an inch now, will the government take a mile later? Btw, it’s worth noting that last night in his press conference, Trump was asked about contact tracing apps. He emphasized that people are worried about constitutional implications. Personally, that’s refreshing for me, and seems to distinguish him from the Bush/Cheney era pushing of the Patriot Act, or Obama’s use of dragnet surveillance and secret FISA courts.
    - bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
      If we give an inch now, the government will absolutely take a mile later. From the perspective of the centralized government, it's a race to the bottom with privacy rights and you know what famous racer D. Toretto said about races... "It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning's winning."
sifar 7y ago
To those who advocate that the majority's right to live trumps the right to an individual's privacy, who decides ? At present it is due the pandemic, next it will target some set of people because they are undesirable - because you know, that would supposedly make us safe. We know how that ended the last time. Whether it is contact tracing or wearing an arm band, underneath it is the same thing. When an individual is compelled, for the perceived safety of the majority, it leads to slavery. It also destroys the majority. And technology accelerates this process. Having seen rights being eroded, trampled, mocked, I have realized that we do not have any effective rights. They are a privilege bestowed by those in power.
- hartator 7y ago
  I think individual rights should always trump the majority will. Individual rights are natural, unremovable, and should not be up to debate. It’s the reason why the US is a republic and we have a bill of rights > all laws or orders.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    So no wiretaps, ever? I'm not so sure...
    - hartator 7y ago
      It’s up to a judge to decide. It has to limited in scope, responsable, and with serious individual suspicion. A lot like current quarantine rulings - mass quarantines are unconstitutional in the US - but we all forget.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - luckylion 7y ago
        > It’s up to a judge to decide. Yeah, but he enacts the will of the majority ;) I totally get & agree with the sentiment, but not in the absolutist form. It's always going to be fuzzy, the question is mostly how we weigh the needs of the many and the needs of the few (or the individual). I do believe that the average response to that is strongly reflected in each nation's laws & culture, with the US emphasizing the individual's needs a lot more.
adequateness 7y ago
A related post is EFF's blog post about contract tracing apps[1]. They talk about many of the same issues as CCC but specifically targeted to contract tracing. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/challenge-proximity-apps-covid-19-contact-tracing https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/challenge-proximity-ap...
zabana 7y ago
I think anyone interested in the subject ought to play the Deus Ex game series (especially the last two entries in the franchise)
mrcsharp 7y ago
If you must err, err on the side of liberty, freedom, and privacy.

250 points by ericdanielski 7y ago

Sadly not holding my breath for this to happen in America. After they tracked those spring breaker cell phones with ease, I’m afraid human rights are already being trampled.

chapium 7y ago
Proportionate response isn't trampling. Edit: I should flesh this out a bit further. In hindsight, cellphone data should have augmented contact tracing rather than just sitting on the sidelines and drawing maps a week later. In my opinion there is a time and place to wield technological power when there is a collective need. Ethicists can argue where the line is drawn but an existential threat to 2% of the infected seems sufficient, especially given how fast a pandemic spreads.
- tastroder 7y ago
  Your edit is worth debating, though I doubt there's an easy way to settle the argument between ethical concerns and the efficacy of tracking at phone cell granularity. Most of what I've read in that regard didn't really indicate that particular technological capability makes more sense than an overall lockdown since it can hardly be called targeted. For further context: The example you replied to references this data in the hands of advertisers, with extremely questionable claims about their pseudo anonymization. That just made your comment before the edit less sensible. I believe such a debate might make sense at the level of a government agency, private entities exchanging that data is just a ridiculous idea.
  - Tainnor 7y ago
    Contact tracing via technology doesn't have to be via phone towers or anything like that (I agree those have little value outside of the aggregate). Anonymous tracking solutions via bluetooth that are much more are actively being developed and have also been advocated for by people affiliated with the CCC (as well as epidemiologists).
    - tastroder 7y ago
      I didn't mean to imply that it did, the example this thread built on was just one of cell based tracking.
- jacobush 7y ago
  If everything else in American politics and government execution worked smoothly and some extra cell phone tracking could have unwrinkled the last wrinkles, I'd maybe give your argument consideration. As it currently stands, getting cell phone data would be like polishing the door knobs while your basement is flooded. There are bigger fish to fry, lower fruits to pick etc etc.
- keiferski 7y ago
  This kind of opinion is predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint. I.e., it's okay to do wrong to a small number of people if it benefits the overwhelming majority of people. There are plenty of other ethical approaches, many of which would say that the upholding of certain rights is more important than any benefits gained from violating them.
  - NotAnEconomist 7y ago
    To concur: It's not merely predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint, it assumes that we've accurately accounted for costs of the options (eg, second and third order effects) when deciding rather than merely justifying our preferences with biased models. Empirically, the second (biased models) happens considerably more often than the first (accurate accounting) -- to the point that even if you're a utilitarian, you have to admit it doesn't work in practice. You simply can't make the required benefit calculations for utilitarianism. This is something businesses get wrong a lot: their numerical justification is actually a reflection of the biases of their staff, rather than an accurate accounting of the options.
    - Tainnor 7y ago
      The counterpoint to this is that you can't just wait forever before making a decision. At some point, you'll have to do with imprecise data, and for a pandemic that is developing very rapidly, you can't just sit back and do nothing (well you can, but then you have to make an argument for why this is a good option). As to the point of whether utilitarianism is a good ethical framework... well, at least no non-consequentialist ethical framework has ever convinced me. A naïve reading of utilitarianism has its problems, of course, but those can be accounted for; but the classical Kantian conundrum of not being allowed to lie to a murderer seems silly to me. Plus saying "principles matter" has just as many problems as the utilitarian approach, as nobody will be able to agree on those principles.

vinniejames 7y ago

Ed Snowden discussing the topic on Vice: https://youtu.be/k5OAjnveyJo https://youtu.be/k5OAjnveyJo

zabana 7y ago
the video is unavailable outside of the US
- squarefoot 7y ago
  Temporary error maybe? I'm not in the US and can watch it perfectly.

soufron 7y ago

If I might, digital surveillance technologies cannot actually help fight the pandemic. It's a fantasy. What can hep are masks, medicines and good hygiene practices. Everything else is only the use of shock doctrine to push old agendas. If you're interested, that's what I argued in the French newspaper Liberation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.liberation.fr%2Fdebats%2F2020%2F04%2F10%2Fle-contact-tracking-ou-la-generalisation-du-bracelet-electronique-pour-les-citoyens_1784826 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...

dirtyid 7y ago
Sadly, effective response to infectious disease throughout history have all added to the authoritarian toolbox to necessarily limit individual freedom because we know individual responsibility does not scale. While individual irresponsibly at scale has calamitous consequences in context of infectious disease. Cordon sanitaire / quarantines in response to disease outbreaks have been the impetus for consolidation of government power. Historically this has been coarse geographic control where regions are locked down or movement of people is restricted for months to years - 160 years between Austria and Ottoman empire. Much like the total shutdown of countries we're seeing now that refuse to adopt more granular control enabled by surveillance technology. Sacrificing privacy to manage individual affects on collective risk is going to be an inevitable component of modern life moving forward if we want to return to any semblance of the old "normal". A normal where most people did not care much about privacy either.
naringas 7y ago
sadly, it doesn't matter whether you're right (in a rational-technical sense from a engineering perspective). Fear makes more people react emotionally.
seedie 7y ago
When you say cannot actually help fight the pandemic do you have any reason to believe they won't work from a scientific point of view? Sorry if I have missed it, but to me your arguments were privacy issues and the technical difficulties (different platforms, Support) to get an app on enough smartphones to reach the critical number of participants. Don't get me wrong I totally agree, these are things that we first need to find a solution. But your post sounded to me like you have the opinion that contact tracing doesn't work.

bitcharmer 7y ago

I'm even more terrified by what's going on at the not-so-virtual level. In Poland, where I come from they have been exercising a crawling coup d'état and turning the country into a police state. They passed laws that go directly against the constitution, they refuse to postpone presidential elections in early May and they started terrorising whole communities with overwhelming police harassment. They event chose to give a raise to the police and not the healthcare workers. I only hope the EU steps in soon or we'll see Poland drifting towards an authoritarian regime

eternalban 7y ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/Thomas_Binder/status/1249069412822417408 https://mobile.twitter.com/Thomas_Binder/status/124906941282... That was in Switzerland. The doctor [1] has a history of challenging establishment narratives and was previously arrested in conjunction with the chemical attacks in Syria. I have read second hand accounts that assert that he was arrested, taken to a mental hospital, and has been released. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Binder2 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Binder2
altac 7y ago
In Germany, a lawyer who called for a demonstration against the curfew first had her website taken down and has been put into psychiatry now (no English link, the Welt is decently reputable): https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article207246011/Heidelberg-Aufbegehren-gegen-Corona-Regeln-Anwaeltin-in-Psychiatrie-eingewiesen.html#Comments https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article207246011/Heidelberg-...
- mtmail 7y ago
  Counter argument: The website takedown was temporary, in the psychiatry she has access to her mobile phone, police issued press releases. She reports in the psychiatry she's safe from 'dark forces' (https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_87699240/corona-polizei-bringt-coronoia-anwaeltin-beate-bahner-in-die-psychiatrie-.html https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_87699240/...). I wouldn't rule out that indeed she suffers persecution mania.

sbhn 7y ago

Surveillance exists for the industry that profits from it. Wake up everybody

Zenst 7y ago

When such things are done to maintain the human right to live then information freedom will take second place in priorities. Yes that sounds dramatic, but is the context that is being overlooked here. Should it be opt-in, should it be opt-out. Well I'm already aware of people who go out and leave their mobile at home, so you could ask that those this is going to need to target will not be targetable.

monkeynotes 7y ago
I am keeping an eye on digital passports that may be needed to go grocery shopping, or just go to the park. It's plausible that you will be required to carry your phone, or some kind of digital ID device to check into these places. We are already hearing about immunity passports. I don't want to sound like a nut case, but I can see that once we have this sort of thing as commonplace to deal with Covid it will be expanded and never withdrawn. The phrase "the new normal" is starting to pop up, and I find that terrifying. I am already mourning the life we enjoyed just months ago.
- jaywalk 7y ago
  This is exactly correct, and half of the population (at least in America) is sitting here and begging the government to take away more of their freedom so they can feel safer. I am terrified of what the future holds.
  - monkeynotes 7y ago
    There is zero doubt in my mind life will never, ever be the same again. We've seen this by example of 9/11. That was one tragic day and daily life changed forever. So many people are looking forward to getting out of lockdown and resuming their lives. I don't think those lives exist any more, and they will not return to us. Whatever is on the other side of this isn't what we had before.
    - zabana 7y ago
      Interesting perspective. In what ways do you think our lives will be changed forever ?

dan-robertson 7y ago

Digital surveillance technologies used to advertise toothpaste, however, should (or at least will) remain largely unregulated and free to do what they want

bloak 7y ago
So in some countries a government initiative to track people using mobile electronic devices might lead to greater privacy. We could end up with government-issued phones as an alternative to phones designed and continually updated by foreign corporations. (Though clearly there are lots of ways the story could go.)
- meowface 7y ago
  Any day of the week, I'd much prefer to be tracked by Google trying to sell me things than have my every action tracked by the government through my government-issued phone. If those are my only two options, give me Google any day.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

If we want to deal with this pandemic and technological tools like tracking apps are deemed essential to that goal then my view is that these tools should be built and deployed with effectiveness in mind, not privacy. The privacy aspect should then be dealt with by enacting stringent time limits on the use of these tools, not by constraining them. Here in Europe I see discussions and arguments that such tools cannot be deployed because they would breach privacy, or that people will refuse to use them for the same reason. I think that this is like arguing about dinner on a sinking ship.

SCHiM 7y ago
Human decision making is terrifyingly biased. The fear that currently grips the world and its leaders is perfect cover for leaders bent on a totalitarian streak. 'Doing what is right', 'fighting this and that'. Your own point made here is evidence that you too are at least partially in this state of mind, given that you equate our current situation to being on a sinking ship. A number of questions come to mind: Are we really in such a dire situation? Is compromising on rights justified to get rid of this situation? About 1. Some countries got hit very hard, communities ripped apart and families devastated. That's not even considering the drawn out consequences of the economic downturn. The situation is dire. But on 2, it's much easier: I don't want you or anyone else to know about my stuff. Its nobodies business but my own. I completely opposed to any form of control in the name or for the sake of fighting this. Any technical measure I will oppose, probably quite successfully. I reject the premise that we're able to make effective decisions right now that are not clouded in fear, are not too drastic and can be modeled to effectively respect our rights.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  It's a question of priority, not ideology or naivety or fear. There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear. In the US and Western Europe we are factually on a sinking ship. The economy and society as a whole are sinking. This must stop as soon as possible. If tools like tracking apps allow to reopen sooner while controlling the pandemic then this ought to be the priority. This is a minimal compromise of rights for a limited time only (the 'limited time' part is what ought to be the safeguard). The fear, and frankly paranoia, is not on the side of being in favour of these tools, it is on the side of rejecting them for ideological reasons. It's seeking a pyrrhic victory: "Ah everything collapsed but at least no-one could track me on my commute to my long lost job!".

naringas 7y ago

"""and the first human right is the right to live. therefore, so that we all may live on, you must give up your privacy. It's only so that the appropriate authorities may tack down anybody you may have contacted; and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be quarantined. And frankly they might die, but we do this merely so that the rest of us may live on peacefully and prosper.""" e.g. take this 'and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be quarantined' and swap it out for another historical age statement such as a classic inquisition era "if found to be sinner/heretics/non-believers the church will help them repent" though, in the inquisition era there was no comparable surveillance technology. I just wrote this, but I am not sure whether I agree. I am conflicted. edit: after editing in the inquisiton example, I realized that I disagree (with many reservations) with the entire sentiment of initial triple-quote.

zulgan 7y ago
I don't think this is true, the first human right is the right to die, and secondly the right to live. So you can only live a life that allows you to die. For example, if my mother is in a hospital dying from corona, and the system forbids me to see her (despite me taking precautions that I deem fit), I must revolt. This of course sounds like nonsense, and I am also conflicted, but this is my intuition.
- hestipod 7y ago
  I was recently hospitalized for a suicide attempt due to years of chronic pain and depression as a result. I was not allowed to die. I get no help to live after being dumped back out when "stable" medically. I was not allowed any visitors due to the virus and it was very detrimental to my mental health. Now I am here alone trying to piece together a future. Nobody revolted...and I am powerless to. Frustrates me so much there wasn't help to live...but I am told I have to. Trapped in a room with no doors or windows and on fire. I don't see this "help" everyone says there is to get. Just people wanting thousands of dollars from me that I cannot pay for nonsense.
  - lioeters 7y ago

totalZero 7y ago

Liberty is a human right. Digital surveillance is fundamentally an invasion of liberty, so by its very nature such surveillance is antithetical to human rights.

black_puppydog 7y ago
there's many liberties, and they often directly conflict. My liberty to listening to music I like conflicts with my neighbour's liberty to sleep at night. Not saying CCC are wrong here - they're pretty much spot on, as so often - but making sweeping statements like this is doing a disservice to this much-needed discourse.
- hartator 7y ago
  > My liberty to listening to music I like conflicts with my neighbour's liberty to sleep at night Well use headphones or don’t crank the amp.
- totalZero 7y ago
  Digital surveillance is a violation of human rights in the same way a policeman cannot enter your house without warrant to observe you and search you. This is one of the oldest principles in modern political thought and it stretches back to at least Semayne's Case in 1604. Your neighbor has a right to sleep in his home. If you blast music, you are disturbing the serenity of his home. That is a different question than the government coming into your private affairs to spy on you. If you really believe that your assertion is applicable, apply it to this circumstance (digital surveillance), rather than setting up a different argument (music and sleep) where your assertion better applies. Your assertion essentially amounts to "all clear principles are bad because they obscure exceptions." First, this is reflexive -- it applies to itself. Second, it is the burden of the exception to prove itself, not the burden of the rule to prove all of its own exceptions; the government needs a reason specific to me in order to observe my private affairs, and in absence of such a warrant I have a blanket protection from those observations.

vinniejames 7y ago

Google and Apple teaming up to enforce tracking at the OS level, very clever indeed: "The Verge: Apple and Google have a clever way of encouraging people to install contact-tracing apps for COVID-19." https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/4/14/21219289/apple-google-contact-tracing-app-android-ios-pros-cons-quarantine-testing https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/4/14/21219289/apple-...

bilbo0s 7y ago
In fairness, the government somehow tracked the cell phones of numerous spring breakers. So, I mean, obviously they already have some ability to do the tracking without any changes by google or apple at all. This just makes that ability known to smart phone users.
- Jagat 7y ago
  They most likely did that through triangulation, which is too coarse for contact tracing.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    But they actually did contact tracing for the spring breakers using whatever method they have now. So either they have another method, or triangulation was good enough for the contact tracing they wanted to do.

messo 7y ago

The good news is that we do not have to sacrifice our (digital) human rights to fight the virus. I was recently made aware of a really simple but effective way of tracking infections without storing data centrally or using positional information (GPS): https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/ https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/

marcelsalathe 7y ago
That's correct. DP3T documents and code here: https://github.com/DP-3T/ https://github.com/DP-3T/
- seedie 7y ago
  Also very interessting to read through the issues of the project
- TechBro8615 7y ago
  It’s really interesting tech, and a great group of people behind it. But the government doesn’t care for this nuance of what is privacy preserving tech and what is not. For now, maybe at the beginning, privacy will be emphasized. But the important part is conditioning citizens to be okay with the underlying idea of technology assisted self-surveillance, and compliance with notifications on their phone telling them to stay inside. Eventually people will forget about the underlying details and privacy will be deemphasized. “You were okay with TrackingApp 1.0, why wouldn’t you be okay with TrackingApp 2.0?” If we give an inch now, will the government take a mile later? Btw, it’s worth noting that last night in his press conference, Trump was asked about contact tracing apps. He emphasized that people are worried about constitutional implications. Personally, that’s refreshing for me, and seems to distinguish him from the Bush/Cheney era pushing of the Patriot Act, or Obama’s use of dragnet surveillance and secret FISA courts.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
    If we give an inch now, the government will absolutely take a mile later. From the perspective of the centralized government, it's a race to the bottom with privacy rights and you know what famous racer D. Toretto said about races... "It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning's winning."

sifar 7y ago

To those who advocate that the majority's right to live trumps the right to an individual's privacy, who decides ? At present it is due the pandemic, next it will target some set of people because they are undesirable - because you know, that would supposedly make us safe. We know how that ended the last time. Whether it is contact tracing or wearing an arm band, underneath it is the same thing. When an individual is compelled, for the perceived safety of the majority, it leads to slavery. It also destroys the majority. And technology accelerates this process. Having seen rights being eroded, trampled, mocked, I have realized that we do not have any effective rights. They are a privilege bestowed by those in power.

hartator 7y ago
I think individual rights should always trump the majority will. Individual rights are natural, unremovable, and should not be up to debate. It’s the reason why the US is a republic and we have a bill of rights > all laws or orders.
- luckylion 7y ago
  So no wiretaps, ever? I'm not so sure...
  - hartator 7y ago
    It’s up to a judge to decide. It has to limited in scope, responsable, and with serious individual suspicion. A lot like current quarantine rulings - mass quarantines are unconstitutional in the US - but we all forget.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - luckylion 7y ago
      > It’s up to a judge to decide. Yeah, but he enacts the will of the majority ;) I totally get & agree with the sentiment, but not in the absolutist form. It's always going to be fuzzy, the question is mostly how we weigh the needs of the many and the needs of the few (or the individual). I do believe that the average response to that is strongly reflected in each nation's laws & culture, with the US emphasizing the individual's needs a lot more.

adequateness 7y ago

A related post is EFF's blog post about contract tracing apps[1]. They talk about many of the same issues as CCC but specifically targeted to contract tracing. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/challenge-proximity-apps-covid-19-contact-tracing https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/challenge-proximity-ap...

zabana 7y ago

I think anyone interested in the subject ought to play the Deus Ex game series (especially the last two entries in the franchise)

mrcsharp 7y ago

If you must err, err on the side of liberty, freedom, and privacy.