5 ms·

My impression as a german: Government access to private data: revealing location & contacts. I think privacy might be the wrong description, I think it's more

My impression as a german: Government access to private data: revealing location & contacts. I think privacy might be the wrong description, I think it's more about surveillance of the people by the state, which is not acceptable for a huge percentage of people I know. Privacy is most of the time the better wording, but I think surveillance is the better fitting term for this occasion. Just compare it to the DDR (German democratic republic, the communist state). Is it similar to the surveillance by DDRs Stasi, which tried to track every move and every word of dissidents? As an additional point: You can't force people to use the app (as far as i know). I don't think this is in any way compatible with basic human rights as formulated by the Grundgesetz (which I support, we are a democracy where the power comes from the people and not an authoritarian regime). They have to opt-in themselves. You have to make the app attractive so that people want to opt-in.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
The whole point of contact tracing is to give the government access to contacts when needed (location is much less important). Experts also say that to be effective these apps have to be installed on 80% of smartphones [1], so in practice they have to be made mandatory. Everything else is a distraction. Either these apps are needed and the above applies, or they are not and let's forget about them. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896
- LeanderK 6y ago
  > The whole point of contact tracing is to give the government access to contacts when needed (location is much less important). Yeah, but only when needed, only as much as strictly necessary and deleting it immediately afterwards. I don't think we will allow general surveillance without a fight with a huge part of the population and fundamental changes to our society and our way to live. Also, I don't agree at all. One right doesn't simply cancel another. And a mandatory app is simply not compatible with our idea of freedom, at least as I understood our basic law. Maybe in certain situation but a general surveillance is illegal. We won't throw away our (liberal) democracy and the rule of law. You can't set a target and just simply force the population to comply. I think we can achieve a good penetration without resorting to authoritarian measures. We have achieved some good numbers so far here in Germany, we can use this to further fight the coronavirus without turning into an authoritarian regime. Even our scientists, e.g. Prof. Drosten from the Charite, understand that politics is not science, there are limits what's possible and always stresses that the society itself must decide to act.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    This has nothing to do with democracy, surveillance, or freedom. Nothing is absolute and a balance has to be struck. Germany is quite controlling in many aspects so it is a little strange that this would be an issue. If contact tracing is needed then it should be deployed in the most effective way. This is temporary and does not restrict people's freedoms at all. The controversy is manufactured on ideological grounds at a time when pragmatism should prevail. Claiming that this would be throwing away democracy or the rule of law is plainly ridiculous. I think Germany is still traumatised by its history and this often has unfortunate consequences (we already saw it several times in recent years).
    - mikem170 6y ago
      >If contact tracing is needed then it should be deployed in the most effective way I, and many others, do not agree with your opinion that it should be mandatory. No other country has mandated contact tracing apps for their non-quarantined population. There's no proof that a contact tracing application would be effective after there are already millions of cases. There is no indication that there will be enough tests to identify asymptomatic carriers, so if you were vulnerable you'd still need to self-isolate to be safe. Already 1 out of 5 people have antibodies to this. We're on our way to herd immunity and a death rate of something like 1 out of 500 people. We were trying to slow things down so that hospitals were not overwhelmed, and we've done so. Unless someone comes up with a vaccine that can be mass produced in the next couple months this will all be a moot point.
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        I didn't write that it should be mandatory. I wrote that it should be mandatory IF it is needed. Otherwise it's like saying that lockdown is needed but that it will only be opt-in: it does not make sense. By the way, no, 1 in 5 people do not have antibodies.
        mikem170 6y ago
        I apologize, you are correct that you did not say mandatory. I got carried away in the conversation. > By the way, no, 1 in 5 people do not have antibodies. "Cuomo Says 21% of Those Tested in N.Y.C. Had Virus Antibodies", NY Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-...
- sharken 6y ago
  I don't trust the involved actors enough to use this app, if i want maximum surveillance i'll just move to China or North Korea.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

The whole point of contact tracing is to give the government access to contacts when needed (location is much less important). Experts also say that to be effective these apps have to be installed on 80% of smartphones [1], so in practice they have to be made mandatory. Everything else is a distraction. Either these apps are needed and the above applies, or they are not and let's forget about them. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896

LeanderK 6y ago
> The whole point of contact tracing is to give the government access to contacts when needed (location is much less important). Yeah, but only when needed, only as much as strictly necessary and deleting it immediately afterwards. I don't think we will allow general surveillance without a fight with a huge part of the population and fundamental changes to our society and our way to live. Also, I don't agree at all. One right doesn't simply cancel another. And a mandatory app is simply not compatible with our idea of freedom, at least as I understood our basic law. Maybe in certain situation but a general surveillance is illegal. We won't throw away our (liberal) democracy and the rule of law. You can't set a target and just simply force the population to comply. I think we can achieve a good penetration without resorting to authoritarian measures. We have achieved some good numbers so far here in Germany, we can use this to further fight the coronavirus without turning into an authoritarian regime. Even our scientists, e.g. Prof. Drosten from the Charite, understand that politics is not science, there are limits what's possible and always stresses that the society itself must decide to act.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  This has nothing to do with democracy, surveillance, or freedom. Nothing is absolute and a balance has to be struck. Germany is quite controlling in many aspects so it is a little strange that this would be an issue. If contact tracing is needed then it should be deployed in the most effective way. This is temporary and does not restrict people's freedoms at all. The controversy is manufactured on ideological grounds at a time when pragmatism should prevail. Claiming that this would be throwing away democracy or the rule of law is plainly ridiculous. I think Germany is still traumatised by its history and this often has unfortunate consequences (we already saw it several times in recent years).
  - mikem170 6y ago
    >If contact tracing is needed then it should be deployed in the most effective way I, and many others, do not agree with your opinion that it should be mandatory. No other country has mandated contact tracing apps for their non-quarantined population. There's no proof that a contact tracing application would be effective after there are already millions of cases. There is no indication that there will be enough tests to identify asymptomatic carriers, so if you were vulnerable you'd still need to self-isolate to be safe. Already 1 out of 5 people have antibodies to this. We're on our way to herd immunity and a death rate of something like 1 out of 500 people. We were trying to slow things down so that hospitals were not overwhelmed, and we've done so. Unless someone comes up with a vaccine that can be mass produced in the next couple months this will all be a moot point.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      I didn't write that it should be mandatory. I wrote that it should be mandatory IF it is needed. Otherwise it's like saying that lockdown is needed but that it will only be opt-in: it does not make sense. By the way, no, 1 in 5 people do not have antibodies.
      - mikem170 6y ago
        I apologize, you are correct that you did not say mandatory. I got carried away in the conversation. > By the way, no, 1 in 5 people do not have antibodies. "Cuomo Says 21% of Those Tested in N.Y.C. Had Virus Antibodies", NY Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-...
sharken 6y ago
I don't trust the involved actors enough to use this app, if i want maximum surveillance i'll just move to China or North Korea.