4 ms·
I almost always land on the "more is better by definition' side of the privacy fence. For example I'm staunchly against Apple's CSAM scanning on-device, but in
by newsbinator 5y ago
I almost always land on the "more is better by definition' side of the privacy fence. For example I'm staunchly against Apple's CSAM scanning on-device, but in their cloud they can scan whatever they want.
So in this case, if it's anonymized and aggregated, how is it different from monitoring wastewater?
It's a flow of public info about something very private, but which is anonymized and aggregated such that what's personal/private is never revealed.
I will fight for my privacy rights every which way. But this particular one doesn't concern me because:
1. That data was already available and being sold (i.e. this isn't a new door opening)
2. It's not tied to me individually
I expect future generations will wonder why we'd ever push back against such a basic and necessary public health tool in a government's tool kit. To me it feels like pushing back against wastewater testing.
- anonymousab 5y agoIt is generally foolish to trust claims of data anonymization from a megacorp. So with the government, your ability to believe them will be based on your existing faith in your government's intent and technical prowess. I think Canadians are generally split on the former and quite pessimistic about the latter.
- newsbinator 5y agoIf they didn't anonymize the data, or tried but failed to, then we can hold them to account for that. But the government didn't create this door or open this door. Whether or not they access this data, it's there to be accessed. Might as well use it for public good, and create a framework for using it safely.