5 ms·

In the last year, differing answers in different societies to the following hypothetical privacy scenario have seemed important. Suppose there is a dangerous,

In the last year, differing answers in different societies to the following hypothetical privacy scenario have seemed important. Suppose there is a dangerous, highly infectious novel pathogen which can be spread by apparently asymptomatic people. Alice tests positive for this pathogen. Does she have the right to keep this information private? Alice tells Bob, but asks Bob to keep the fact of her positive test private. Bob knows Alice has seen other people during the window where she could potentially have been infectious. Is it socially acceptable for Bob to post on Facebook that Alice tested positive? What if Alice's government systematically tests people and carefully follows people who test positive? Is Alice less free? Does she have fewer rights than if she lived in a society with strong norms against this kind of thing? What if the latter society has a much harder time containing the epidemic, resulting in longer-lasting, more onerous restrictions on public gatherings due to uncertainty about who is and isn't infected?

zwkrt 6y ago
Well your scenario is obviously playing out to be true, this doesn’t mean that we need to degrade privacy on all fronts. It’s reasonable to me that someone might have to disclose that they have a communicable disease yet still have privacy in the vast majority of areas of their life. Heck, before the pandemic this was already the case; you can be prosecuted in many countries for the intentional (or intentionally undisclosed) transmission of HIV. Talk about privacy reminds me of Wittgenstein’s Philisophical Investigations, in which he expounds that we get into so much conceptual trouble when we try to use words like “truth” in the abstract instead of looking at cases where people actually say that word. Privacy is not a single right or a single action, it is an umbrella term for hundreds of unrelated things. Privacy means totally different things in the following scenarios: - at the doctors office - at a nude beach - in a changing room - between neighbors - among parents and children - a “private person” (i.e. someone who doesn’t share their thoughts readily) - private enterprise
- woopwoop 6y ago
  The last one is different from the rest, but not in a way that is especially relevant I think. No one is confusing the private sector with a right to privacy. The rest seem to me to have an obvious common thread, and it should be possible to make arguments general to all of them even if there are meaningful specific differences. The question is when are you willing to declare it illegal to disclose facts about another person, because in some sense that person owns facts about themselves. When are you willing to declare it utterly socially unacceptable? I'm willing to accept that there may be cases where the answers to these questions differ, but there should be principles common to all scenarios.
sudosysgen 6y ago
You should probably add to the equation that in the past scenario the government is still systematically collecting information about your location, they just don't use it for contact tracing.
- woopwoop 6y ago
  Why is that relevant?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In 2021, there is not really a question about whether your government is going to track most people's movements - the question is actually if that should be used for productive uses also. Which is a difficult question, don't get me wrong, and arguably more interesting.
dud7eurru 6y ago
Seems pretty simple, Bob is the asshole for being a bad friend and for pretending his backstabbing made a difference in the grand scheme of things. The people who were already exposed are either already in a hospital and know or they're fine. If I had a friend behaving like Bob I'd counter by saying I got it from him and that he's deflecting.
- woopwoop 6y ago
  What if the people who were already exposed are currently asymptomatic but contagious?
  - dud7eurru 6y ago
    Same answer. Bob's decided to take something told in confidence and risk my reputation sharing it. He's not only a bad friend but clearly a risk so the best move is to burn him back and as hard as possible. He's getting dragged in and if he argues Im going to turn it into a larger issue for him. If we're coworkers I'm going straight to HR and asking what to do because a fellow employee infected me and then tried to put the blame on me. Anything but total calculated aggression will justify Bobs behaviors.
    - woopwoop 6y ago
      I guess it depends on whether you think someone has a right to a reputation independently of how they behave. Thanks for your answer, it was very enlightening.
      - dud7eurru 6y ago
        To clarify, I'm aware there's a difference in perspective occurring. You're approaching it more from if it's beneficial to the larger group. But Bob is supposed to be my friend, if I can't trust him to keep something socially volatile like that a secret then he's failed me at an individual in a potentially harmful way. At an individual level it makes far more sense to bury Bob than say 'thanks for screwing me Bob'

zwkrt 6y ago

Well your scenario is obviously playing out to be true, this doesn’t mean that we need to degrade privacy on all fronts. It’s reasonable to me that someone might have to disclose that they have a communicable disease yet still have privacy in the vast majority of areas of their life. Heck, before the pandemic this was already the case; you can be prosecuted in many countries for the intentional (or intentionally undisclosed) transmission of HIV. Talk about privacy reminds me of Wittgenstein’s Philisophical Investigations, in which he expounds that we get into so much conceptual trouble when we try to use words like “truth” in the abstract instead of looking at cases where people actually say that word. Privacy is not a single right or a single action, it is an umbrella term for hundreds of unrelated things. Privacy means totally different things in the following scenarios: - at the doctors office - at a nude beach - in a changing room - between neighbors - among parents and children - a “private person” (i.e. someone who doesn’t share their thoughts readily) - private enterprise

woopwoop 6y ago
The last one is different from the rest, but not in a way that is especially relevant I think. No one is confusing the private sector with a right to privacy. The rest seem to me to have an obvious common thread, and it should be possible to make arguments general to all of them even if there are meaningful specific differences. The question is when are you willing to declare it illegal to disclose facts about another person, because in some sense that person owns facts about themselves. When are you willing to declare it utterly socially unacceptable? I'm willing to accept that there may be cases where the answers to these questions differ, but there should be principles common to all scenarios.

sudosysgen 6y ago

You should probably add to the equation that in the past scenario the government is still systematically collecting information about your location, they just don't use it for contact tracing.

woopwoop 6y ago
Why is that relevant?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  In 2021, there is not really a question about whether your government is going to track most people's movements - the question is actually if that should be used for productive uses also. Which is a difficult question, don't get me wrong, and arguably more interesting.

dud7eurru 6y ago

Seems pretty simple, Bob is the asshole for being a bad friend and for pretending his backstabbing made a difference in the grand scheme of things. The people who were already exposed are either already in a hospital and know or they're fine. If I had a friend behaving like Bob I'd counter by saying I got it from him and that he's deflecting.

woopwoop 6y ago
What if the people who were already exposed are currently asymptomatic but contagious?
- dud7eurru 6y ago
  Same answer. Bob's decided to take something told in confidence and risk my reputation sharing it. He's not only a bad friend but clearly a risk so the best move is to burn him back and as hard as possible. He's getting dragged in and if he argues Im going to turn it into a larger issue for him. If we're coworkers I'm going straight to HR and asking what to do because a fellow employee infected me and then tried to put the blame on me. Anything but total calculated aggression will justify Bobs behaviors.
  - woopwoop 6y ago
    I guess it depends on whether you think someone has a right to a reputation independently of how they behave. Thanks for your answer, it was very enlightening.
    - dud7eurru 6y ago
      To clarify, I'm aware there's a difference in perspective occurring. You're approaching it more from if it's beneficial to the larger group. But Bob is supposed to be my friend, if I can't trust him to keep something socially volatile like that a secret then he's failed me at an individual in a potentially harmful way. At an individual level it makes far more sense to bury Bob than say 'thanks for screwing me Bob'