3 ms·

I don't think you're right in your assessment of the current discussions in Europe. I think people's focus currently is on how to build these apps in a way that

I don't think you're right in your assessment of the current discussions in Europe. I think people's focus currently is on how to build these apps in a way that respects privacy as much as possible, and not that it's not possible. Even the CCC is clear in that regard. That said, I agree that the containment of this epidemic is of utmost importance.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
On the one hand, some people do seem against these apps on privacy grounds, we see it in this very thread. On the other hand, some people are indeed spending precious time on investigating if and how they can be built to respect privacy. If we need these apps we need them fast. We don't have the luxury to wait 6 months for clever implementations. Again, to me that's having priorities wrong.
- Tainnor 7y ago
  IMHO, most people ITT who are against the apps are American and have a different mindset when it comes to balancing individual liberties and communal wellbeing. Even the CCC has never said that such apps are bad per se, if done right. We don't have to wait 6 months. Those apps are easy to develop, there are several candidates already and others are being developed by the authorities themselves.
- meowface 7y ago
  This concern about the apps seems overblown to me. They should make them opt-in and time-limited, and add whatever privacy-preserving features they can. If they're still around in 1 or 2 years or whenever the pandemic risk is gone, tens of millions of people are going to be like "why is this still an app?". It's not like this is some kind of sneaky thing they're slipping by you. You'll know if you have the app or not. The real fear isn't opt-in apps from Google/Apple. It's broad, new privacy-infringing legislation. That's the sneaky thing that could be largely invisible, abused for decades, and hard to undo. Just keep an eye out for that. Otherwise, let's try to maybe cut the length of this current situation by months.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    What is the point of doing contract tracing if it is optional? IMHO, if (key point) it is deemed that contact tracing is crucial then it should be mandatory with government-approved apps. People who do not want to be traced are then 'free' to stay confined at home until this is over.
    - meowface 7y ago
      It's a tough trade-off. In my opinion, I think 85%+ of people will likely agree to opt-in. It's not perfect, but it'd be far better than anything we have right now. Trying to make it mandatory, and trying to enforce the confinement of dissenters, as you refer to, might actually lead to less total adoption in the US. People will protest and boycott, there'll be endless conspiracy theories (there already are, but way more people will believe these than 5G hoaxes; and worse, the theories may not even be implausible), and I think it'd just stir up a lot of trouble. A large percentage of Americans just don't like mandatory enforcement of measures that reduce freedom or privacy. I think Google and Apple can present this in a way that will result in most people agreeing to it.
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        Extreme individualism has a price. If Americans are willing to pay it, and they seem to when we look at issues other than the pandemic, then be it. It's up to them.
        meowface 7y ago
        Yeah. In this case I just think it's a matter of pragmatism. Principles aside, I think there'll just be more adoption if it's opt-in instead of mandatory. Maybe not in other countries, but I think that's probably how it'd go in America.
    - Tainnor 7y ago
      Recent studies seem to indicate that even a participation rate of 60% or something would significantly slow the spread of the infection (of course, it all depends on the model parameters...).

mytailorisrich 7y ago

On the one hand, some people do seem against these apps on privacy grounds, we see it in this very thread. On the other hand, some people are indeed spending precious time on investigating if and how they can be built to respect privacy. If we need these apps we need them fast. We don't have the luxury to wait 6 months for clever implementations. Again, to me that's having priorities wrong.

Tainnor 7y ago
IMHO, most people ITT who are against the apps are American and have a different mindset when it comes to balancing individual liberties and communal wellbeing. Even the CCC has never said that such apps are bad per se, if done right. We don't have to wait 6 months. Those apps are easy to develop, there are several candidates already and others are being developed by the authorities themselves.
meowface 7y ago
This concern about the apps seems overblown to me. They should make them opt-in and time-limited, and add whatever privacy-preserving features they can. If they're still around in 1 or 2 years or whenever the pandemic risk is gone, tens of millions of people are going to be like "why is this still an app?". It's not like this is some kind of sneaky thing they're slipping by you. You'll know if you have the app or not. The real fear isn't opt-in apps from Google/Apple. It's broad, new privacy-infringing legislation. That's the sneaky thing that could be largely invisible, abused for decades, and hard to undo. Just keep an eye out for that. Otherwise, let's try to maybe cut the length of this current situation by months.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  What is the point of doing contract tracing if it is optional? IMHO, if (key point) it is deemed that contact tracing is crucial then it should be mandatory with government-approved apps. People who do not want to be traced are then 'free' to stay confined at home until this is over.
  - meowface 7y ago
    It's a tough trade-off. In my opinion, I think 85%+ of people will likely agree to opt-in. It's not perfect, but it'd be far better than anything we have right now. Trying to make it mandatory, and trying to enforce the confinement of dissenters, as you refer to, might actually lead to less total adoption in the US. People will protest and boycott, there'll be endless conspiracy theories (there already are, but way more people will believe these than 5G hoaxes; and worse, the theories may not even be implausible), and I think it'd just stir up a lot of trouble. A large percentage of Americans just don't like mandatory enforcement of measures that reduce freedom or privacy. I think Google and Apple can present this in a way that will result in most people agreeing to it.
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      Extreme individualism has a price. If Americans are willing to pay it, and they seem to when we look at issues other than the pandemic, then be it. It's up to them.
      - meowface 7y ago
        Yeah. In this case I just think it's a matter of pragmatism. Principles aside, I think there'll just be more adoption if it's opt-in instead of mandatory. Maybe not in other countries, but I think that's probably how it'd go in America.
  - Tainnor 7y ago
    Recent studies seem to indicate that even a participation rate of 60% or something would significantly slow the spread of the infection (of course, it all depends on the model parameters...).