Hacker News Reader

Comment by troughway | Hacker News Reader

The language used in this article is written with a soft authoritarian tone.

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.

View on HN

Your comment sounds deeply conspiratorial, especially towards the end. I’d argue that there are more pieces in the media bringing light to the rampant privacy abuses in tech than advocating for greater surveillance.

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.

The media follows trends and advises what is popular. People are scared now, so almost all the media attention I am seeing is pro spying right now when it comes to Covid. 6 months ago, it was different. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s market incentives

That might be true or it might be confirmation bias.

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.

It’s probably our respective filter bubbles, which is a whole other problem

> 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.

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?

Would you be in favor of such "authoritarian" measures if COVID-19 had a 15% fatality rate, affected the young just as much as the old, and three of your extended family members + 20 friends/acquaintances died?

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.

Except you don’t know whether the neighbours house isn’t on fire, so you had better go in just in case. And while you are there, take an inventory of everything you find, record the data forever for unknown future purposes, and then never leave. It is not a valid comparison.

A more precise analogy on my part would have illustrated negative externalities. I am partially reliant on you for my safety. Even if I do everything I can to protect myself and others from the virus, you still put me at risk if you don't do the same.

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.

> I am partially reliant on you for my safety. Even if I do everything I can to protect myself and others from the virus, you still put me at risk if you don't do the same.

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.

I am not arguing in favor of further lockdown. I think we should partially relax the lockdown for everyone who is not “at risk,” but with proper mitigations:

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.

> If the answer is yes, then our differences lie in the value you place on human life rather than our relative support for "authoritarianism."

Well, it's in the ratio of those two values; which differs could be either or both.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com