Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

So AEI's solution is mass surveillance of citizens, their movements, and who they came into contact with? And they directly call for that to be a national database:

> The AEI authors also call for a national surveillance system to tie local systems together and enable contact tracing throughout the country

This is like the 9/11 and the Patriot Act all over again. Why is it that so called conservative organizations who proclaim to love "small government" always push the most privacy invading and draconian solutions? I'd call it turn-key authoritarian but I'm pretty sure the key will start out in the "on" position.

Keep in mind this is NOT a solution to keep people safe, this is a solution to allow US businesses to re-open sooner. It actually makes people less safe, and seeks to compensate by robbing people of privacy all so that business can resume.

View on HN

I think you are perhaps conflating the public health definition of surveillance with what HN usually thinks of as "surveillance." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_surveillance)

In the US, if you get certain reportable illnesses (COVID-19, E.coli infection, meningitis, etc), it's reported to the county/state health department, and via various channels, ends up anonymized with the CDC. Likewise, there are syndromic and lab-based public health surveillance networks that will monitor flu-like symptoms (ILINet) and will sequence samples (PulseNet) to help track cases in the US. Moreover, there's even more public health surveillance when it comes to drug safety -- if you tell your physician that you got any of a number of side effects from a drug you're taking, that is reportable to the FDA (FAERS). What Gottlieb et al are asking for is merely extending the best practices we have from flu, foodborne, and other diseases to COVID-19, in a way that has proven extremely effective, and also preserving privacy and liberty.

I think many of us here are rightfully concerned about an increasing surveillance state, but the term "surveillance" here is an unfortunate term collision, and we should resist the knee-jerk reaction in this case.

I think in this specific case both terms are being used in merged meanings. They are talking about using a national surveillance (as in surveillance state) data collection to help perform public heath surveillance.

What is being proposed from a public health surveillance perspective is reliant on a multifold and invasive surveillance state data collection and mining perspective.

Back in the day, before electronic communications, public health surveillance was just the best surveillance possible. So I believe that it's a largely artificial distinction.

Even so, I agree that there are ways to do public health surveillance where the raw data is buried well enough that users only see actionable information, and only aggregate data is released.

>Keep in mind this is NOT a solution to keep people safe, this is a solution to allow US businesses to re-open sooner. It actually makes people less safe, and seeks to compensate by robbing people of privacy all so that business can resume.

Privacy concerns aside: This is a decision of saving lives and trying to get the economy going; this seems like one of the better solutions out there. We cannot shut down the economy for a long period of time. Doing so would tear apart the fabric of society, both financially and the quality of life. The shut down would last many months, all depending on the rate of spread before herd immunity is reached/staying under the capacity of our hospitals. Prevention of loss/death should not completely eclipse our purpose of being alive.

As an example, if we maintained a 4% daily growth with our current level of shut down (using NYC numbers), herd immunity would not be reached until the beginning of July. Middle of September at 2%^. As Cuomo said, we can print as much money as we want, but if there aren't any revenues, the economy is not being taken care of.

Also, this type of tracking probably already exists. Android/Google has an opt out GPS history. I woudln't be surprised if this data wasn't already being crunched and used.

^ This assumes the true amount of people who have contracted coronavirus is 5 times higher (based on 80% asymptomatic cases)

> Prevention of loss/death should not completely eclipse our purpose of being alive.

The economy is not our purpose for being alive!

The "economy" directs our best and brightest to work on adtech and HFT for the benefit of people who are already rich. The economy underpays teachers, nurses, cooks, and other "essential" workers. The economy is the reason we cut taxes and defund the CDC. The economy has people continue to work while they're sick during a global pandemic because otherwise they won't be able to pay their rent.

The economy has figured out how to do some interesting things, which are not for the benefit of most people nor society as a whole. The economy is not our purpose for being alive!

Do you think the ideals you argue for exist without an economy?

"An economy" is not the same as "the" economy. It seems like it should be possible for an economy to be able to contribute to the welfare of society as a whole, and most individuals within that society. However, "the" economy that we have, does not do so. It is a severe indictment of our economy, that pausing all nonessential activity for a few months can be catastrophic to so many people, and for no good reason. As the old joke goes, "we have enough food, it's too bad there isn't enough money to buy it all".

I think it actually does, otherwise those people wouldn't be employed at all.

And I'm curious, you say it should contribute only to "most individuals" -- which ones, specifically, in your framework, should be excluded?

You're making it sound as if the economy in the abstract sense is the thing that is employing people. Those people would still definitely be employed in a "different" economy, since an economy is simply a space in which people trade goods and services.

And I don't think his framework actively excludes people, it's just that economies almost never contribute to all individuals equally.

Well, "the economy in the abstract sense" is the thing that is employing people.

Claiming that those people would still definitely be employed in a different economy is simply saying it would be the same economy. And the claim was that this utopian new economy would contribute to the "welfare of society as a whole, and most individuals within that society", so I'm curious who isn't covered under that "most".

> This is like the 9/11 and the Patriot Act all over again.

I would say it is worse; it is the Patriot Act on steroids. Because this will be "to keep your children safe from epidemics" there will be even less public scrutiny and pushback on questionable data collections. Ouch!

That's what I've noticed as well. When places started doing mandatory lockdowns under the threat of fines or prison, questioning it would usually result in people coming out of the woodwork to say that public health is at risk, so everyone needs to just shut up and do what their told, personal freedoms be damned. The biggest change to me with the lockdowns is that "innocent until proven guilty" is thrown out the window. If you leave your house, it's on you to prove that you weren't breaking the lockdown laws, not on the police to prove that you were going somewhere unauthorized.

That's my default reaction too. And I am glad that I don't have a smartphone, or use my cellphone much.

But still, I get the argument that quarantines and contact tracing are essential now. I may not be readily traceable, but I accept that I may be challenged when I go out. Just as I'd be stopped for speeding, reckless driving, broken lights, etc. And so I don't go out without a valid reason.

I agree. It sounds like an awful solution. Imagine if they did this for herpes.

If this ever comes online, I imagine they'll use it for all and any social "ills." Including herpes. It will be like McCarthyism on steroids; guilty by literal proxy.

I don't know about herpes, but I vaguely recall that people have been prosecuted for spreading HIV. Maybe even convicted, but I don't recall.

> Why is it that so called conservative organizations who proclaim to love "small government" always push the most privacy invading and draconian solutions?

I'll give you a hint and it rhymes with honey.

they're scummy?

on edit: slant rhymes count right?

Not entirely money, because they drop the small-government act for victimless moral issues too. Seemingly unaware that eventually it backfires.

Why not just an anti-body test & if you feel sick, do a regular test.

People with anti-bodies go back to work, people who feel sick get treatment, everyone else is in lockdown.

In 12-18 months we have a vaccine and / or are all sick anyway and have anti-bodies.

Reality is any complex solution will take longer to implement than the easier solution(s) (just getting antibodies).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com