The Price of Covid Freedom May Be Eternal Spying
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
It’s a nice gesture of Bloomberg to put shills for his wet dreams in the opinion section, but the advocacy of surveillance state by the big media is becoming obvious.
I can’t speak for HN or the mods, but I do wonder if there are subjects that are not worth discussing because of how undemocratic and liberty infringing they are.
Case in point, anything that uses the language and examples like this “opinion” piece to hem around a “means justify the ends” rhetoric.
They (media, governments, billionaires) will use any and all means to gain more control, power, and minimize potential leakers, whistleblowers, usurpers and anyone who disagrees with their rule.
The writer says: “The bottom line: Where they exist, robust institutions could still offer resistance. In most other places, the individual’s autonomy has already become a virus casualty. Poorer countries where consumers have only recently started going online will see states insist on devices that come with pre-loaded tracking apps. More information will reside on central servers than epidemiologists have asked for or need. But who will stop the juggernaut?”
So I’m not sure I agree that he’s advocating that the ends justify the means.
I’ve seen mostly stories warning about the potential for abuse of some of the proposed solutions.
Then again it might be my own bias seeing that.
If the answer is yes, then our differences lie in the value you place on human life rather than our relative support for "authoritarianism." COVID tracing apps are about as authoritarian as forcing open your neighbor's door and violating his personal sovereignty by saving him from a house fire.
No one will compel you to opt into COVID tracing. You can purchase a non-iOS/Android phone. That would be a reasonable price to pay for forsaking a valuable public safety measure. Moreover, grocery stores and other businesses should be free to require proof that someone has a COVID-tracing device before entering the premises.
People put other people at risk by driving. Heck, a big tree in a public place is a risk due to the potential for falling limbs. Are you against those things, too?
This whole argument seems to be about the people who feel vulnerable to the disease having to go to grocery stores to get food.
If the government would supply clean food to those people, it would seem that we'd no longer have to metaphorically lock everyone in chains in order to save the few.
1. Obligatory masks (freely provided by the government)
2. Social distancing and limitations on large or dense gatherings. Special policies should be rolled out for each sector (offices, restaurants, etc...)
3. Contact tracing apps
4. Greater testing (not necessarily population-wide, but a lot more than what is currently available)
5. Free delivery of essential goods for the at-risk population, and potentially subsidized delivery for non-essential goods
Because of the OP, I was mostly addressing mitigation #3.
Well, it's in the ratio of those two values; which differs could be either or both.
That's counter-intuitive. If liberty matters, it would seem that raising concerns is key.
If HN readers are a self-selecting tech elite, who is more likely to suggest the ideas that are worth pursuing?
edit: grammar
One word: herd immunity.
It's why saving lives are the most important, even at the expense of liberty and your happiness. Without life, the other two wouldn't exist.
Consider that the United States' disposition to privacy has contributed to the less effective response to the pandemic. Does the US gain an equivalent amount of competitiveness for the vulnerabilities that privacy allows? Are decisions even being considered with regard to this trade-off?
I'm probably biased because I have enjoyed the benefits of privacy my whole life, but is it possible that the US is in general placing too high value on privacy?