5 ms·

Location tracking is a huge business and honestly CDC is probably the actor we should be least concerned about in that marketplace. I think the real story is th

Location tracking is a huge business and honestly CDC is probably the actor we should be least concerned about in that marketplace. I think the real story is the commodification of our physical presence and the resulting surveillance capitalism models it further enables and normalizes.

EricE 4y ago
Good point. I think the real value of this story is not that this data is readily available, but that the government is also consuming it - which most people (rightly!) have a problem with. If that's the wake up call it takes to make people pay attention to just how bad "surveillance capitalism" is, then I'm all for it.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
It's feasible to be concerned about both corporate and government surveillance at the same time.
- 0daystock 4y ago
  Definitely true and I'm of the same mind. Which is why I'm dissuading readers from unnecessary moral outrage over petty, inconsequential matters like this, and encourage everyone to think deeper about technology's role in our lives.
mynameishere 4y ago
least concerned about Why are people saying this sort of thing about the CDC? They have proven themselves out-of-control, irrational dictators.
- 0daystock 4y ago
  Because they're an organization which is still bound by public laws and social norms, whereas the real sinister use of our location data goes entirely unnoticed and is far, far more insidious than will ever be printed in the subservient press.
  - native_samples 4y ago
    Are they? Didn't they somehow unilaterally suspend rent payments for the entire US, even though that is well outside their granted authority? And what social norms did lockdowns involve, exactly?
    - 0daystock 4y ago
      A federal judge vacated the nationwide freeze on evictions that was put in place and the lockdowns were not merely the result of US health officials conspiring. Your criticism of the CDC is valid but I believe it is misguided; the manufactured moral outrage I'm speaking about distracts us from the real abuses of power happening behind the veil, and they are far more shocking than what is reported here.
      - Clubber 4y ago
        I mean maybe. The CDC is just an outlet or a tool that was appropriate at the time. I'm sure they didn't come up with the eviction moratorium on their own, they were told to do that, or at least it was authorized by another group. They also knew it would be overturned because they have legal council. Just because it's the CDC doesn't mean there aren't strings moving the arms about. "The principle of a court overruling a public health judgment by a qualified organization like the CDC is disturbing in the precedent that it might send.”
      - native_samples 4y ago
        And who was punished by the court for breaking the law in that way? Nobody, right? So in reality they aren't bound by the law.
        0daystock 4y ago
        Okay, maybe they're not held to the same legal standard as we would be, but at least they can be litigated unlike shadow cabals of deep government.
BeefWellington 4y ago
I'm going to preface my argument here with a statement that I think this kind of use by the CDC is appropriate given their mission and stated goals. It will absolutely help them figure out possible future models of population compliance with types of orders and restrictions. That said, this kind of thing does seem like it has the potential to effectively be an end run around needing a warrant to do this kind of tracking on an individual basis. If it's not allowed for the government to track any particular person without a warrant but they can just buy the tracking data from a brokerage and claim "we didn't do the tracking" - that's a bit problematic to say the least. I do agree with other posters though that the real crux of it here is that this kind of data should be illegal to have on its own anyways UNLESS ordered by a court to collect it for the purposes of a warrant.

EricE 4y ago

Good point. I think the real value of this story is not that this data is readily available, but that the government is also consuming it - which most people (rightly!) have a problem with. If that's the wake up call it takes to make people pay attention to just how bad "surveillance capitalism" is, then I'm all for it.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

It's feasible to be concerned about both corporate and government surveillance at the same time.

0daystock 4y ago
Definitely true and I'm of the same mind. Which is why I'm dissuading readers from unnecessary moral outrage over petty, inconsequential matters like this, and encourage everyone to think deeper about technology's role in our lives.

mynameishere 4y ago

least concerned about Why are people saying this sort of thing about the CDC? They have proven themselves out-of-control, irrational dictators.

0daystock 4y ago
Because they're an organization which is still bound by public laws and social norms, whereas the real sinister use of our location data goes entirely unnoticed and is far, far more insidious than will ever be printed in the subservient press.
- native_samples 4y ago
  Are they? Didn't they somehow unilaterally suspend rent payments for the entire US, even though that is well outside their granted authority? And what social norms did lockdowns involve, exactly?
  - 0daystock 4y ago
    A federal judge vacated the nationwide freeze on evictions that was put in place and the lockdowns were not merely the result of US health officials conspiring. Your criticism of the CDC is valid but I believe it is misguided; the manufactured moral outrage I'm speaking about distracts us from the real abuses of power happening behind the veil, and they are far more shocking than what is reported here.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      I mean maybe. The CDC is just an outlet or a tool that was appropriate at the time. I'm sure they didn't come up with the eviction moratorium on their own, they were told to do that, or at least it was authorized by another group. They also knew it would be overturned because they have legal council. Just because it's the CDC doesn't mean there aren't strings moving the arms about. "The principle of a court overruling a public health judgment by a qualified organization like the CDC is disturbing in the precedent that it might send.”
    - native_samples 4y ago
      And who was punished by the court for breaking the law in that way? Nobody, right? So in reality they aren't bound by the law.
      - 0daystock 4y ago
        Okay, maybe they're not held to the same legal standard as we would be, but at least they can be litigated unlike shadow cabals of deep government.

BeefWellington 4y ago

I'm going to preface my argument here with a statement that I think this kind of use by the CDC is appropriate given their mission and stated goals. It will absolutely help them figure out possible future models of population compliance with types of orders and restrictions. That said, this kind of thing does seem like it has the potential to effectively be an end run around needing a warrant to do this kind of tracking on an individual basis. If it's not allowed for the government to track any particular person without a warrant but they can just buy the tracking data from a brokerage and claim "we didn't do the tracking" - that's a bit problematic to say the least. I do agree with other posters though that the real crux of it here is that this kind of data should be illegal to have on its own anyways UNLESS ordered by a court to collect it for the purposes of a warrant.