If we want to deal with this pandemic and technological tools like tracking apps are deemed essential to that goal then my view is that these tools should be built and deployed with effectiveness in mind, not privacy.
The privacy aspect should then be dealt with by enacting stringent time limits on the use of these tools, not by constraining them.
Here in Europe I see discussions and arguments that such tools cannot be deployed because they would breach privacy, or that people will refuse to use them for the same reason.
I think that this is like arguing about dinner on a sinking ship.
Human decision making is terrifyingly biased. The fear that currently grips the world and its leaders is perfect cover for leaders bent on a totalitarian streak.
'Doing what is right', 'fighting this and that'.
Your own point made here is evidence that you too are at least partially in this state of mind, given that you equate our current situation to being on a sinking ship.
A number of questions come to mind:
Are we really in such a dire situation?
Is compromising on rights justified to get rid of this situation?
About 1. Some countries got hit very hard, communities ripped apart and families devastated. That's not even considering the drawn out consequences of the economic downturn. The situation is dire.
But on 2, it's much easier: I don't want you or anyone else to know about my stuff. Its nobodies business but my own. I completely opposed to any form of control in the name or for the sake of fighting this. Any technical measure I will oppose, probably quite successfully. I reject the premise that we're able to make effective decisions right now that are not clouded in fear, are not too drastic and can be modeled to effectively respect our rights.
It's a question of priority, not ideology or naivety or fear.
There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear.
In the US and Western Europe we are factually on a sinking ship. The economy and society as a whole are sinking. This must stop as soon as possible.
If tools like tracking apps allow to reopen sooner while controlling the pandemic then this ought to be the priority.
This is a minimal compromise of rights for a limited time only (the 'limited time' part is what ought to be the safeguard).
The fear, and frankly paranoia, is not on the side of being in favour of these tools, it is on the side of rejecting them for ideological reasons. It's seeking a pyrrhic victory: "Ah everything collapsed but at least no-one could track me on my commute to my long lost job!".
Most stringently disagree. There are numerous examples in history where do-good measures have later been abused in the most abhorrent manner possible. In fact, I'm living in a place whose history is influenced by one of these examples[1].
Our ideology, ideas and what we do and don't find acceptable in this world are what matters. We can't sacrifice our rights in the name of necessity because it just doesn't stop. ever. There will always be disease. There will always be terrorists. There will always be criminals, child pornography and drugs.
As an example of deaths that our system does find acceptable just look at the amount of deaths caused by drunk driving. It's technologically perfectly feasible to equip every car with a breathalyzer, but we don't. The number of deaths from the current disease is obviously higher, but that too will pass, the cars will still be there.
History is also littered with disaster and recovery. Doesn't mean every disaster has to happen, also doesn't mean things have to be sacrificed to stop one either. In the end that's my stance on this: rather face this current disaster, than the one we'd be constructing when we sacrifice our rights.
And that's just how it is, as far as I'm concerned.
> There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear.
This is wrong. Governments have a long history of opportunistically expanding their reach and power when it comes to matters concerning privacy. The PATRIOT Act, for instance, or everything Snowden has written about. Only rarely do they voluntarily give it up.
I can see where you're coming from with your other points, but there's a good reason people here tend to be very distrustful of governments when it comes to privacy matters.
Thats a convenient framing to have that simply dismisses reality and the past rather than dealing with them. It wont be a minimal compromise of rights, it will be direct violations. It will not be limited and it will be used beyond its intent. They have proven this time and again. They cannot be trusted, nor can the people that come after them who made no such promises.
This is the same crap Congress tries to give us on so many issues. 'Here is our solution, its the only possible solution (its not) so it must be passed even though its terrible.'
I think your second point, in particular, is underrated. With stringent (and credible) time limits, of the sort "these measures are guaranteed to end by Feb 1, 2021", more severe impositions on privacy/liberty could be tolerable.
A big worry in any crisis is that the "temporary" measures turn out not to be temporary. A credible way to guarantee that they are, in fact, temporary, would be a fantastic development in society's response to pandemics etc. (It's hard for me to imagine what a credible guarantee would look like -- if you purchase privacy-invading software X from a company, then after the crisis is past, that software still exists! Just by the fact that the software exists, it's now easier to re-institute its use...)
The flip side of this: right now, in the absence of such a guarantee, it's awfully difficult (at least in my mind, and many of the commenters here) to justify any erosion of privacy laws+practices. This is simply because the erosion will presumably be permanent, while the crisis is not.
I don't think you're right in your assessment of the current discussions in Europe. I think people's focus currently is on how to build these apps in a way that respects privacy as much as possible, and not that it's not possible. Even the CCC is clear in that regard. That said, I agree that the containment of this epidemic is of utmost importance.
On the one hand, some people do seem against these apps on privacy grounds, we see it in this very thread. On the other hand, some people are indeed spending precious time on investigating if and how they can be built to respect privacy.
If we need these apps we need them fast. We don't have the luxury to wait 6 months for clever implementations. Again, to me that's having priorities wrong.
This concern about the apps seems overblown to me. They should make them opt-in and time-limited, and add whatever privacy-preserving features they can. If they're still around in 1 or 2 years or whenever the pandemic risk is gone, tens of millions of people are going to be like "why is this still an app?". It's not like this is some kind of sneaky thing they're slipping by you. You'll know if you have the app or not.
The real fear isn't opt-in apps from Google/Apple. It's broad, new privacy-infringing legislation. That's the sneaky thing that could be largely invisible, abused for decades, and hard to undo. Just keep an eye out for that. Otherwise, let's try to maybe cut the length of this current situation by months.
What is the point of doing contract tracing if it is optional?
IMHO, if (key point) it is deemed that contact tracing is crucial then it should be mandatory with government-approved apps. People who do not want to be traced are then 'free' to stay confined at home until this is over.
It's a tough trade-off. In my opinion, I think 85%+ of people will likely agree to opt-in. It's not perfect, but it'd be far better than anything we have right now.
Trying to make it mandatory, and trying to enforce the confinement of dissenters, as you refer to, might actually lead to less total adoption in the US. People will protest and boycott, there'll be endless conspiracy theories (there already are, but way more people will believe these than 5G hoaxes; and worse, the theories may not even be implausible), and I think it'd just stir up a lot of trouble. A large percentage of Americans just don't like mandatory enforcement of measures that reduce freedom or privacy.
I think Google and Apple can present this in a way that will result in most people agreeing to it.
Extreme individualism has a price. If Americans are willing to pay it, and they seem to when we look at issues other than the pandemic, then be it. It's up to them.
Yeah. In this case I just think it's a matter of pragmatism. Principles aside, I think there'll just be more adoption if it's opt-in instead of mandatory. Maybe not in other countries, but I think that's probably how it'd go in America.
Recent studies seem to indicate that even a participation rate of 60% or something would significantly slow the spread of the infection (of course, it all depends on the model parameters...).
IMHO, most people ITT who are against the apps are American and have a different mindset when it comes to balancing individual liberties and communal wellbeing. Even the CCC has never said that such apps are bad per se, if done right.
We don't have to wait 6 months. Those apps are easy to develop, there are several candidates already and others are being developed by the authorities themselves.
The privacy aspect should then be dealt with by enacting stringent time limits on the use of these tools, not by constraining them.
Here in Europe I see discussions and arguments that such tools cannot be deployed because they would breach privacy, or that people will refuse to use them for the same reason.
I think that this is like arguing about dinner on a sinking ship.