5 ms·

Perhaps put the "kills" in the proper context of 240,000 / 350,000,000 and then evaluate the relative risk vs. sacrificing one's privacy.

tw04 6y ago
>Perhaps put the "kills" in the proper context of 240,000 / 350,000,000 and then evaluate the relative risk vs. sacrificing one's privacy. Those are some pretty horrible numbers you're attempting to use. 350m people haven't been infected, so it's nowhere close to 240k/350m. It's closer to 240k/10m. As for privacy: if we were told we'd need to be permanently tracked from now until the end of time, I think just about everyone would agree with you (at least on HN) that it's just not a sacrifice worth making. But NOBODY is saying that, they're saying: how about we use this tool until a vaccine is ready - which is a far more reasonable ask.
- CodeWriter23 6y ago
  My factual numbers aren’t “bad” simply because you choose a different perspective. Notice how I am respectful of your position despite your attempts to bully me into joining some concept of unanimous consent you have contrived here. The reality is, very strong correlation of Vitamin D deficiency to hospitalization and death. But I’m not here telling you to be reasonable and dose Vitamin D to protect yourself and take responsibility for your own health. Bottom line though, I go to work and I go home. Contact tracing the old fashioned way is 100% sufficient for me. If you want to engage risky behavior that’s on you. I have no obligation to have my every movement tracked because of your exercise of free will.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    > Contact tracing the old fashioned way is 100% sufficient for me. Errr... you said you are against "contact tracing". I (personally) took that to mean "the old way". But it sounds like you're against the automated phone app thing? Well, I am too. My phone isn't capable of running any of the apps anyway, so it's kind of moot in my case. Regarding lockdown, in my state (Victoria, Australia) we're just now starting to loosen our lock down rules after a sustained (multi-month) period of lock down. For us, it worked. We've just had our 14th day of 0 new coronavirus cases in a row, and they shouldn't be returning. :) That was after starting into a J-curve of increasing coronavirus cases, hitting 700+ per day before the lock down started taking effect. So, lockdowns + masks work. And if we hadn't gone down that path, we'd be heading to a dark place about now (like the US) and our economy would probably end up turning to shit. o_O That being said, the lock down sucked. We also had a curfew (8pm - 5am), to help manage it. Not being able to go out except for exercise or to buy food gets to a person after a few weeks. :(
    - CodeWriter23 6y ago
      The nuance of this discussion is the use of personal tracking technology as a means of contact tracing. At least that's the way I read it, starting a few layers up the comment tree.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  I would have agreed with you had I not witnessed the passing and renewal of the patriot act. Back then I was in favor of it, too. I think it’s naive to think contact tracing will ever be rolled back. I fear it will be a new permanent surveillance tool. I would rather keep my personal liberty.
  - mckirk 6y ago
    How, exactly, would a contact tracing app implemented using the currently used protocols pose any threat to your privacy?
  - ralph84 6y ago
    Nothing is ever rolled back. 19 years after 9/11 we're still doing the security theater dance at the airport.
  - EliRivers 6y ago
    "Contact tracing" is asking people who they've been near, and then checking on them as well. It can't ever be "rolled back" any more than "asking someone a question" can be rolled back.
EliRivers 6y ago
That feels pretty messed up. If you knew you had a communicable disease that other people might have caught from you, and be spreading it themselves, and some people dying, and you get asked "who might you have spread this to" you'd refuse to answer on privacy grounds. Would you even call them yourself to tell them you might have infected them? I guess if you'd been to somewhere that you didn't know everyone, you'd just have to take that as an unavoidable sacrifice they're making for your privacy.
- CodeWriter23 6y ago
  I never said I would disclose my locations I have visited in the event I become infected, so you can stop your virtue signalling. I said I was against having my every move tracked by a device. I simply don't believe we are at that point where we need to know where everyone is every moment of the day.
justinclift 6y ago
Personally, I agree with there being no need for app based contact tracing. It doesn't seem to have proved real world useful anyway. That being said, a lot of people seem to be ignoring that it's not just about who dies from this virus. There seems to be a lot of evidence that a good percentage of people get long term damage from it. Including athletes and extremely healthy (before) people. Hopefully some we'll be able to quantify that at some useful point too, in order to better assess risks, priorities, etc.

tw04 6y ago

>Perhaps put the "kills" in the proper context of 240,000 / 350,000,000 and then evaluate the relative risk vs. sacrificing one's privacy. Those are some pretty horrible numbers you're attempting to use. 350m people haven't been infected, so it's nowhere close to 240k/350m. It's closer to 240k/10m. As for privacy: if we were told we'd need to be permanently tracked from now until the end of time, I think just about everyone would agree with you (at least on HN) that it's just not a sacrifice worth making. But NOBODY is saying that, they're saying: how about we use this tool until a vaccine is ready - which is a far more reasonable ask.

CodeWriter23 6y ago
My factual numbers aren’t “bad” simply because you choose a different perspective. Notice how I am respectful of your position despite your attempts to bully me into joining some concept of unanimous consent you have contrived here. The reality is, very strong correlation of Vitamin D deficiency to hospitalization and death. But I’m not here telling you to be reasonable and dose Vitamin D to protect yourself and take responsibility for your own health. Bottom line though, I go to work and I go home. Contact tracing the old fashioned way is 100% sufficient for me. If you want to engage risky behavior that’s on you. I have no obligation to have my every movement tracked because of your exercise of free will.
- justinclift 6y ago
  > Contact tracing the old fashioned way is 100% sufficient for me. Errr... you said you are against "contact tracing". I (personally) took that to mean "the old way". But it sounds like you're against the automated phone app thing? Well, I am too. My phone isn't capable of running any of the apps anyway, so it's kind of moot in my case. Regarding lockdown, in my state (Victoria, Australia) we're just now starting to loosen our lock down rules after a sustained (multi-month) period of lock down. For us, it worked. We've just had our 14th day of 0 new coronavirus cases in a row, and they shouldn't be returning. :) That was after starting into a J-curve of increasing coronavirus cases, hitting 700+ per day before the lock down started taking effect. So, lockdowns + masks work. And if we hadn't gone down that path, we'd be heading to a dark place about now (like the US) and our economy would probably end up turning to shit. o_O That being said, the lock down sucked. We also had a curfew (8pm - 5am), to help manage it. Not being able to go out except for exercise or to buy food gets to a person after a few weeks. :(
  - CodeWriter23 6y ago
    The nuance of this discussion is the use of personal tracking technology as a means of contact tracing. At least that's the way I read it, starting a few layers up the comment tree.
dkdk8283 6y ago
I would have agreed with you had I not witnessed the passing and renewal of the patriot act. Back then I was in favor of it, too. I think it’s naive to think contact tracing will ever be rolled back. I fear it will be a new permanent surveillance tool. I would rather keep my personal liberty.
- mckirk 6y ago
  How, exactly, would a contact tracing app implemented using the currently used protocols pose any threat to your privacy?
- ralph84 6y ago
  Nothing is ever rolled back. 19 years after 9/11 we're still doing the security theater dance at the airport.
- EliRivers 6y ago
  "Contact tracing" is asking people who they've been near, and then checking on them as well. It can't ever be "rolled back" any more than "asking someone a question" can be rolled back.

EliRivers 6y ago

That feels pretty messed up. If you knew you had a communicable disease that other people might have caught from you, and be spreading it themselves, and some people dying, and you get asked "who might you have spread this to" you'd refuse to answer on privacy grounds. Would you even call them yourself to tell them you might have infected them? I guess if you'd been to somewhere that you didn't know everyone, you'd just have to take that as an unavoidable sacrifice they're making for your privacy.

CodeWriter23 6y ago
I never said I would disclose my locations I have visited in the event I become infected, so you can stop your virtue signalling. I said I was against having my every move tracked by a device. I simply don't believe we are at that point where we need to know where everyone is every moment of the day.

justinclift 6y ago

Personally, I agree with there being no need for app based contact tracing. It doesn't seem to have proved real world useful anyway. That being said, a lot of people seem to be ignoring that it's not just about who dies from this virus. There seems to be a lot of evidence that a good percentage of people get long term damage from it. Including athletes and extremely healthy (before) people. Hopefully some we'll be able to quantify that at some useful point too, in order to better assess risks, priorities, etc.