Part of me really finds it hard to take this seriously because the NYT is exactly the kind of publication where authors would not too long ago gloat how it's so cool that the government is invasively monitoring people when it was being used for whatever they consider good (and the readership would largely agree) and I cynically assume that the shift in opinion is a reflection of immediate political reality and not one of principals.
Part of me likes seeing these articles in the NY times because I'm a naive idiot and think there's a shred of a chance it signals a shift of opinion among those people and that perhaps there is a future in which all the excitement about data driven policy and action of the 2010s and early 2020s is looked at in the rearview mirror the way we look at the eugenics movement.
> the NYT is exactly the kind of publication where authors would not too long ago gloat how it's so cool that the government is invasively monitoring people
Where? When?
> when it was being used for whatever they consider good
Doing anything is bad when it is used for something bad and good when used for something good. Government in general isn't bad just because of the existence of DPRK.
Remember when google and apple were reporting aggregate mobility data to the government to assist public health authorities assessing compliance with lockdowns?
Location and attendance tracking? Vaccine passports?
It's hard to untangle now, there was some level of genuine concern for effective public health combined with a distressing measure of glee at the "justified" persecution of political enemies.
"If you don't get that third booster you're KILLING GRANDMA and deserve to be FIRED."
Most people want broad powers and high state capacity when the government is pursuing policy goals they are aligned with but would prefer a slow and ineffective government bound by "strict controls and oversight" when it is pursuing policy objectives they do not like.
None of this has anything to do with the NYT, but you've made some other claims that seem to be warped interpretations of recent events.
> Remember when google and apple were reporting aggregate mobility data to the government to assist public health authorities assessing compliance with lockdowns?
> genuine concern for effective public health combined with a distressing measure of glee at the "justified" persecution of political enemies.
Is it not justified to enforce any law just because of the "distressing" thought that someone might take glee in the punishment of the person who broke that law? Either the law is correct public policy and enforced fairly or not. The glee or lack thereof of your political opponents has no bearing on which it is.
> "If you don't get that third booster you're KILLING GRANDMA and deserve to be FIRED."
The private sector required employees to vaccinate to keep their group insurance rates low and reduce disease-related work disruption. Should the government's hands be tied on keeping its own insurance rates low (and reducing cost to the public), absorbing the more expensive to insure people no longer employed in the private sector because of some public benefit that is worth the cost? That is a reasonable public policy question. Should the government's hands be tied because someone might take glee in its firing of people who don't get vaccinated? That is not a reasonable public policy question.
“People on the left think this is good because it makes giving social services easier”
Source? I’d like to meet a single person that feels this way. People on the left in my experience would much rather just give money directly to people, UBI-style. Adding stipulations and verification and administration costs so much money that could just be cash in people’s pockets.
Like, the whole idea of food stamps is that “these poor people are too stupid or deviant to spend money on the ‘correct’ products and services. Daddy government knows best and will restrict the benefits to processed cold food at approved chain supermarkets and gas stations”
> Military authorities in California requested census data to identify the Japanese-American population. Then in 1942, president Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order to authorise their removal.
This is obviously how this is going to be used and anyone thinking otherwise is naive. They are building a system to track dissenters. First it will be used to track down illegal immigrants to justify its existence. We are pretty much going down the "first they came for.." list.
I don't think they even need to be illegal immigrants based on what we are seeing so far with detentions and deportations.
For example Rümeysa Öztürk (the topic popped up on a now-flagged submission, I'm not sure the etiquette about linking to that at this point). Mahmoud Khalil is another one (permanent resident).
Part of me likes seeing these articles in the NY times because I'm a naive idiot and think there's a shred of a chance it signals a shift of opinion among those people and that perhaps there is a future in which all the excitement about data driven policy and action of the 2010s and early 2020s is looked at in the rearview mirror the way we look at the eugenics movement.
reply