20 ms·
See the issue here is that this data exists at all and it’s purchasable by any group. I feel like the CDC are the least scary people buying this data. And from
by samschooler 4y ago
See the issue here is that this data exists at all and it’s purchasable by any group. I feel like the CDC are the least scary people buying this data. And from the looks of it they used it for medical research, which if similar in style to other medical research is bound by boards and ethics committees.
What we aren’t writing about in this article are the groups using this data Cambridge Analytica style to sway political opinion, and other less than stellar purposes.
- Proven 4y ago[dead]
- LorenPechtel 4y agoYeah. I have no problem with researchers getting anonymized data. CDC, snoop all you want. It's the business guys I don't like having it.
- nickff 4y agoGovernments have a long and storied record of data abuse, from the Stasi in East Germany to LoveInt at the CIA.
- Nextgrid 4y agoYes, but those threats already exist regardless and stopping the sale of carrier data won't stop them. Ideally you'd want to stop both, but if I had to choose I'd prefer that only the government has access rather than the highest bidder (which can be the government if they so desire, so in the end you're back at square one anyway).
- maerF0x0 4y agoDid you know there are many classes of crime that follow the pattern you spoke of "It already exists out there, and will persist even if I stop, I'm not creating it just propagating it..." One pretty nasty example would be revenge porn. a lesser one would be piracy of copyright material
- lucb1e 4y agoOf course one has to keep government( agencie)s in check, but to compare the CDC to the Stasi.... I don't know if that's really an apt or appropriate comparison
- modriano 4y agoHumans have a long and storied record of using tools and information to do malicious things. But we also have a long and storied record of using tools and information to produce the incredible advances of the past few centuries, where the median life expectancy has nearly doubled from the baseline over the past 50k years. Personally, I would really prefer a system where health information was centralized and easily transferrable to healthcare providers, as I think it would be massively better if we could learn from the bad outcomes of others rather than creating thousands of information silos that have to learn these expensive lessons in parallel, and it would also allow us to know the prices of healthcare services thereby enabling efficient markets to develop.
- chaps 4y agoAre you suggesting that this location information is "health" data and is okay for them to use and store?
- jonathankoren 4y agoYes. Location data is health data. It has been since 1854. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outb...
- chaps 4y agoJust because data is used in understanding something related to health doesn't mean that it's "health data" in a legal, protected, or regulatory sense. Nor does it mean that they should have de facto access to the data without limitations. Hell, the closest thing I'm aware of that's close to it (at least under HIPAA) is the name or address of a hospital that a person's visited. Would you be okay if the CDC purchased data from period-tracking apps to track periods? Or how many bottles of soap I purchase in a year? Or how much booze everyone buys?
- jonathankoren 4y ago
- arcticbull 4y agoRight, because businesses have never done anything bad with data, it's all those government guys. The government of course being the one tasked with improving the health and welfare of the population, not with turning a profit.
- bendbro 4y ago
- pirate787 4y agoThe U.S. Govt used individuals' Census data to round up Japanese-Americans for FDR's World War II internment camps. They also lied about it and claimed that they were only using anonymized data. https://exhibits.lib.berkeley.edu/spotlight/census/feature/japanese-americans-in-world-war-ii-and-the-census https://exhibits.lib.berkeley.edu/spotlight/census/feature/j...
- tablespoon 4y ago>> Yeah. I have no problem with researchers getting anonymized data. CDC, snoop all you want. It's the business guys I don't like having it. > Governments have a long and storied record of data abuse, from the Stasi in East Germany to LoveInt at the CIA. "Governments" is far too coarse-grained of a category; it invites sloppy thinking.
- ChrisLomont 4y agoThey also have a long and storied history of helping the public avoid widespread disasters and preventing larger outbreaks of disease through using data. Which of these is more common and useful?
- epgui 4y agoThat's either a straw man argument or a moral equivalence fallacy, depending on what point you believe you're making.
- LorenPechtel 4y agoNote that I said "anonymized". The first step should be to separate the identity from the data. The phone's ID is plenty for research purposes, keep the name out of it.
- chrisco255 4y agoRight, because governments have never done anything wrong in the history of the world. It's all those evil business guys.
- 0xy 4y agoYou're right, because there's never been a leak of personal data from any researcher or government department.
- dontcare007 4y agoProblem is that once they use it for a benign reason, use of the data will expand into other, less palatable uses.
- mywittyname 4y agoThe problem is that this data is available for anyone to purchase. And anyone includes groups that you don't want to have it. Some people focus their attention on limiting the government's ability to collect this information, but just go about ignoring businesses being legally allowed to keep and sell this data. Now the government is leveraging privatized markets for all of their spying needs and it is neatly kept out of the courts. As the article points out, it wasn't just the CDC performing these kinds of analysis. News organizations were doing the same thing. If we want to curb government surveillance, we need to curb corporate surveillance by legally enshrining a right to privacy that limits the information that companies can collect and sell. Which, ironically, will mean government regulation and enforcement.
- landemva 4y agoMore than one facet to the problem and potential solutions. How about... The problem is this data is not owned by the individual. Which will mean government guidelines and optional private enforcement via lawsuit with meaningful minimum penalties.
- cmroanirgo 4y agoThe problem could also be said to start with software. Particularly Apple and Google for allowing specific location information to be used in the same app as advertising. The problem is that all apps are granted access to the internet. Nip those two things in the bud and the problems will slow down, I think. But it's a pipe-dream, I know. In the early days of Android, I remember reading that Android was Android because you had to jump through all these permission hoops with j2me (Java 2 Mobile Edition). Hence, Android was better and more easy to use than j2me. Here we are, 15 years later with exactly the same set of permissions problems... with one exception, Android still gives out internet access without permission. Many devs here would be aghast at the idea of an app not being internet connected. I believe Google did it that way because Steve Jobs had done it that way in the iPod and iPhones. (I presume there's some HN'ers here that can refute this?) I remember my colleagues at the time remarking how refreshing it was to not have to deal with permissions (because customers disliked all the modal permissions that popped up in j2me)... and we all jumped on board the iPhone and Android development train, not knowing the problems that we'd have down the line.
- alephxyz 4y agoOC's point is that the data was _already_ being used for other less palatable uses.
- KoftaBob 4y agoAgreed. The data broker that the CDC got this data from is SafeGraph. What we really should be asking is what "partners" SafeGraph got this data from, and how.
- cm2187 4y agoGiven the virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has, I am not sure I agree with your assessment that it is the least scary people. But I agree that the problem here is not that the CDC is buying it so much that this data is available to be bought.
- loceng 4y ago
- user_7832 4y ago> Fauci as the saviour in Stockholme Syndrome... Not a downvoter (to your comment, I rarely vote) but does anybody pro-mask/pro-vaccine/pro-lockdown actually consider him a saviour? All I see (as a non American) is folks on the right hating him being considered a saviour... but I don't find a single post glorifying him even on left-leaning reddit.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoThe government having it is the most scary, because they have a monopoly on violence.
- BeefWellington 4y agoThe second amendment contradicts this idea.
- vkou 4y agoThe treason and sedition act contradicts your idea.
- deadbunny 4y agoPredator drones contradict this idea.
- elihu 4y agoI think the more complete formulation is that the government has a monopoly on the legal use of violence. (Which I suppose isn't really true in all contexts: violence by private citizens can be legal when defending private property, for instance. But aside from small carve-outs for personal security, self-defense, and private property it generally holds.)
- mhh__ 4y agoThis is true in the abstract but adds nothing to the discussion if you actually had to make a decision. Lumping everything into "Government" and not government is partly why American society is completely broken in some regards.
- thegrimmest 4y agoAs long as every branch of "Government" has the authority to escalate to forcible imprisonment for noncompliance with their policy, I will be equally mistrustful of all of them.
- 4y ago
- dfee 4y agoThe mental gymnastics of this comment. > bound by boards and ethics committees Is there any evidence an ethics committee was party to this? If in fact, one was, they found it ethical to consume personally identifiable data without those persons’ authorization?
- renewiltord 4y agoI don't think ethics committees are worth the chairs they sit on, but "personally identifiable data"? How did you conclude that it was personally identifiable?
- cinntaile 4y agohttps://www.cdc.gov/os/integrity/hrpo/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/os/integrity/hrpo/index.htm I assume this classifies as research so it should be subject to the same ethical requirements.
- junofan 4y agoGoing off “CDC’s Policy on Distinguishing Public Health Research and Public Health Nonresearch” linked from that page, I would guess this activity they’d call “nonresearch.”
- cinntaile 4y agoI read the guidelines for compliance and my interpretation is that it fulfills the requirements for research while it does not fulfill the requirements for nonresearch. The scope of this reaches all of society instead of the study participants.
- version_five 4y ago> CDC are the least scary people buying this data Most buyers probably just want to target advertising at me, or otherwise grab my attention. The CDC wants a say in how people live their lives and thinks they know better than individuals about risk tolerance and decisions. And they seem to think they can have unchecked power by invoking "science". Can someone name a scarrier entity that could be tracking you? I don't agree with anybody tracking me, but even say insurance companies which is the other worst thing that comes to mind have limited purview in what they might be interested in
- pxeger1 4y ago> thinks they know better than individuals about risk tolerance They do.
- jpgvm 4y agoIf you are that scared of people that have more knowledge than you on topics that take decades of study to understand I can't imagine how scared you should be of politicians. On average they have close to zero knowledge about anything yet wield power to change almost any facet of your life. Personally I'm sticking with the scientists, atleast they earnt that power through real excellence rather than winning some popularity contest.
- smt88 4y ago> Can someone name a scarrier entity that could be tracking you? FBI, CIA, local police, any branch of military, Oathkeepers (a group that did track me for a while because I organized a pro-voting event in my city)... it's a very long list. Basically anyone with a gun and a desire to harm me is a lot scarier. In the past, companies used to assassinate leaders of unionization efforts, too.
- josho 4y agoI know we are getting off track here somewhat. But it's group A wants this data to better understand society in order to save lives, while every other group want this data to increase their profits. To your point, yes we shouldn't allow tracking. But, whatever fix we apply should not be so limited that it only affects the CDC, it should be generally applied to stop all groups as well.
- Romanulus 4y ago
- malwarebytess 4y agoThis type of data collection should be illegal and heavily punished, public or private. The damage it is doing far outweighs the benefits of temporary profits.
- nsonha 4y agothe actual scary people would have the data locked up and be super secret about it. The non scary CDC employees would casually/accidentally leak it to other scary people because there is no reason to believe they are competent or care about security & privacy
- lenkite 4y agoFrankly the CDC are the scariest people buying this data. They have direct power and authority to harm people and their livelihoods with little resistance possible and their head-honcho seriously believes his authority exceeds the supreme court.