5 ms·

This is 100% a legitimate news story. In an era of increased government surveillance and arbitrary encroaching powers, this is exactly what news is. That the

This is 100% a legitimate news story. In an era of increased government surveillance and arbitrary encroaching powers, this is exactly what news is. That the government is apparently using the data anonymized for COVID research etc. is obviously important. Honestly it's a bit odd to think there are people who would just 'look the other way' and trust that the system without information. Thankfully, we have a news diaspora and other journalist can monitor the program and follow the story with 'access to personal information requests' from them, Telus etc..

arcticbull 5y ago
> In an era of increased government surveillance and arbitrary encroaching powers, this is exactly what news is. The government did not create any new powers here, this dataset was available for a long time, and the public health agency is now using it in service of its goal - furthering the public health of Canadians. > That the government is apparently using the data anonymized for COVID research etc. is obviously important. Why is anonymous data important to you? I don't mean this in a provocative way, I'm genuinely curious. I'd honestly submit de-anonymized data to PHAC if asked. Seems like a worthwhile mission. I have no idea how PHAC could harm me or anyone else by knowing I went down to the Loblaws on MacArthur in Vanier this morning. > Honestly it's a bit odd to think there are people who would just 'look the other way' and trust that the system without information. I think it's fair - important even - to ask the questions, but if you find the answer is a non-story, then don't publish it or at least publish it without a negative, suspicious framing. Once they found the data was anonymous and being used under existing authority exactly for the thing it was supposed to be, it's sort of a move along, nothing to see here moment. I know that doesn't sell papers for the grandparent company in New Jersey.
- ziml77 5y ago
  What's the significance of them being headquartered in NJ?
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Foreign ownership of media claiming to be domestic is always worth questioning. Especially when the politics of that other country are quite different than your own, but they’re close enough to meddle in yours. Doubly so when they're 10x bigger in terms of population and significantly more influential - and are also mutually each other's #1/#2 largest trading partners. The old Trudeau (Sr.) quote comes to mind. > "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt," said the late Pierre Trudeau. News sources are always a flashpoint for nationalism and I think, and American media has quite a reputation for sensationalism and the "24 hour news cycle." It's also not like the US is some disinterested party in Canadian politics; I wouldn't care so much if Postmedia were owned by say the Swiss or even the Qataris.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      This is not 'foreign ownernship'. Postmedia is a Canadian News Agency it has nothing to do with the US. It's ownership (broadly), origins, headquarters, management, staff, operations, sales, revenue, even stock listing etc. - everything is Canadian. That there might be some incorporation somewhere is notable, but not important. Trudeau Sr. is not a reliable source of opinion on this, he hugely influenced the CBC charter and re-wrote it in his own parties ideology, influencing a generation of Canadians with his political ideals.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        It is majority owned by an American company. It is foreign owned. What you're describing are domestic employees, not owners - at best, it’s Canadian operated. Surely under this model you wouldn’t object to Postmedia being sold to Alibaba or Tencent? Would that transfer change your perceptions of the publication or what they said about Xinjiang, hypothetically, the Michaels or the PRC? If so, why would you not have the same reaction today in re: sensational articles about our government functioning effectively, our healthcare system, or about softwood lumber? How about what happened with the C-Series/A220? Trudeau Sr was PM for almost 16 years, here’s one of the few people with direct experience, and I don't think it's a big extrapolation to say he knows a thing or two about foreign policy with respect to America.
- tremon 5y ago
  I'd honestly submit de-anonymized data to PHAC if asked Sure, and that's your prerogative. But how come you get to decide that because you don't see a problem, that no one should see a problem? Privacy is not about secrecy, it is about agency. Regardless of how it's framed, usage of involuntarily collected data is a violation of agency. I agree that this is a non-story as far as the Canadian Health Authority is concerned. But the data collection itself is not a non-story, so I'm willing to let the story stand because of that. Isn't it funny how "pro-business" (read: sociopathic) news outlets will defend the need for businesses to violate your agency at every turn, but scream bloody murder when a government institution uses that same commercially-harvested data in order to fulfill their function?
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > I agree that this is a non-story as far as the Canadian Health Authority is concerned. But the data collection itself is not a non-story, so I'm willing to let the story stand because of that. I think we can agree on that!
- jollybean 5y ago
  > "The government did not create any new powers here," The government did not 'create any new powers' to lock us in our homes after 8m pm. The point is, governments around the world are creating new surveillance programs. This is a new surveillance program. Ergo, it's newsworthy. "Why is anonymous data important to you? " Because we've spend 5000 years trying to overcome state surveillance. The reason we have to have a Constitution, where the first line talks about 'Freedom To Assemble'. ... and governments lie. Are they using the Digital Passport data as well? Is it really anonymous, and to what degree? What kind of oversight is there on the researchers? In the end, if it's above board, I'm fine with it, but there needs to be oversight, 'journalism' is part of that, and the state sponsored entity, the CBC, should be the first place to contemplate the story. It's not a non-story, and it's not published with negative or suspicious framing, and even if it were, that's within perogative.

arcticbull 5y ago

> In an era of increased government surveillance and arbitrary encroaching powers, this is exactly what news is. The government did not create any new powers here, this dataset was available for a long time, and the public health agency is now using it in service of its goal - furthering the public health of Canadians. > That the government is apparently using the data anonymized for COVID research etc. is obviously important. Why is anonymous data important to you? I don't mean this in a provocative way, I'm genuinely curious. I'd honestly submit de-anonymized data to PHAC if asked. Seems like a worthwhile mission. I have no idea how PHAC could harm me or anyone else by knowing I went down to the Loblaws on MacArthur in Vanier this morning. > Honestly it's a bit odd to think there are people who would just 'look the other way' and trust that the system without information. I think it's fair - important even - to ask the questions, but if you find the answer is a non-story, then don't publish it or at least publish it without a negative, suspicious framing. Once they found the data was anonymous and being used under existing authority exactly for the thing it was supposed to be, it's sort of a move along, nothing to see here moment. I know that doesn't sell papers for the grandparent company in New Jersey.

ziml77 5y ago
What's the significance of them being headquartered in NJ?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Foreign ownership of media claiming to be domestic is always worth questioning. Especially when the politics of that other country are quite different than your own, but they’re close enough to meddle in yours. Doubly so when they're 10x bigger in terms of population and significantly more influential - and are also mutually each other's #1/#2 largest trading partners. The old Trudeau (Sr.) quote comes to mind. > "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt," said the late Pierre Trudeau. News sources are always a flashpoint for nationalism and I think, and American media has quite a reputation for sensationalism and the "24 hour news cycle." It's also not like the US is some disinterested party in Canadian politics; I wouldn't care so much if Postmedia were owned by say the Swiss or even the Qataris.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    This is not 'foreign ownernship'. Postmedia is a Canadian News Agency it has nothing to do with the US. It's ownership (broadly), origins, headquarters, management, staff, operations, sales, revenue, even stock listing etc. - everything is Canadian. That there might be some incorporation somewhere is notable, but not important. Trudeau Sr. is not a reliable source of opinion on this, he hugely influenced the CBC charter and re-wrote it in his own parties ideology, influencing a generation of Canadians with his political ideals.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      It is majority owned by an American company. It is foreign owned. What you're describing are domestic employees, not owners - at best, it’s Canadian operated. Surely under this model you wouldn’t object to Postmedia being sold to Alibaba or Tencent? Would that transfer change your perceptions of the publication or what they said about Xinjiang, hypothetically, the Michaels or the PRC? If so, why would you not have the same reaction today in re: sensational articles about our government functioning effectively, our healthcare system, or about softwood lumber? How about what happened with the C-Series/A220? Trudeau Sr was PM for almost 16 years, here’s one of the few people with direct experience, and I don't think it's a big extrapolation to say he knows a thing or two about foreign policy with respect to America.
tremon 5y ago
I'd honestly submit de-anonymized data to PHAC if asked Sure, and that's your prerogative. But how come you get to decide that because you don't see a problem, that no one should see a problem? Privacy is not about secrecy, it is about agency. Regardless of how it's framed, usage of involuntarily collected data is a violation of agency. I agree that this is a non-story as far as the Canadian Health Authority is concerned. But the data collection itself is not a non-story, so I'm willing to let the story stand because of that. Isn't it funny how "pro-business" (read: sociopathic) news outlets will defend the need for businesses to violate your agency at every turn, but scream bloody murder when a government institution uses that same commercially-harvested data in order to fulfill their function?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > I agree that this is a non-story as far as the Canadian Health Authority is concerned. But the data collection itself is not a non-story, so I'm willing to let the story stand because of that. I think we can agree on that!
jollybean 5y ago
> "The government did not create any new powers here," The government did not 'create any new powers' to lock us in our homes after 8m pm. The point is, governments around the world are creating new surveillance programs. This is a new surveillance program. Ergo, it's newsworthy. "Why is anonymous data important to you? " Because we've spend 5000 years trying to overcome state surveillance. The reason we have to have a Constitution, where the first line talks about 'Freedom To Assemble'. ... and governments lie. Are they using the Digital Passport data as well? Is it really anonymous, and to what degree? What kind of oversight is there on the researchers? In the end, if it's above board, I'm fine with it, but there needs to be oversight, 'journalism' is part of that, and the state sponsored entity, the CBC, should be the first place to contemplate the story. It's not a non-story, and it's not published with negative or suspicious framing, and even if it were, that's within perogative.