Hacker News Reader

Comment by jesterson | Hacker News Reader

That was expected from the very beginning. Government will collect as much data as possible citing medical reasons and then use the data as it pleases saying since we collect, we are free to use as we want (citing again some blah-blah about public benefits).

What's surprising is that they disclose it. Perhaps he just wasnt prepared for the question

View on HN

> Government will collect as much data as possible citing medical reasons and then use the data as it pleases saying since we collect

Some governments... We don't all live in a surveillance state.

While I do agree with the correction - thank you, unfortunately this is applicable to certain extend to any government in developed world. Especially since the whole COVID madness started.

You'd be surprised.

Where do you leave that's not a surveillance state?

Nordic country. And my point was mainly targeted on "will the government use the data for other non-intended purposes". Instead of whether or not my Internet traffic is monitored by some state actor.

>Nordic country

Nine Eyes:

The Nine Eyes is a different arrangement that consists of the same members of Five Eyes working with Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Norway.

Fourteen Eyes:

According to a document leaked by Edward Snowden, there is another working agreement amongst 14 nations officially known as SIGINT Seniors Europe, or "SSEUR". These "14 Eyes" consist of the same members of Nine Eyes plus Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden.

>will the government use the data for other non-intended purposes

I wouldn't bet on it. I think that nordic cultures (especially Sweden) have the tendency to think the government does no wrong, has no power plays and special interests, and only ever does what it says it does.

I'd be happy to learn which governments in your opinion wouldn't abuse such power.

Europe ( perhaps excluding Hungary). Even then, the bluetooth based protocol of Apple and Google can't be used for location tracing.

The governments have 0 location data in possession when based on that protocol.

I don't think the location aspect is what is important to the government, rather it's the "who met who, and when" aspect.

Which is exactly why the protocol is:

1. Your phone transmits a temporary random number. 2. Your phone stores, but never uploads, list of all the numbers it has seen for a prolonged period. 3. Your phone downloads daily a list of published numbers and cross-references that with the local list.

Literally the only time you upload anything is when you report being positive.

It's funny you say that given I live in an EU country (which is not Hungary) and I strongly disagree with this sentiment.

Like I said, if the app is based on the protocol so it's not even possible in that case.

Most countries followed this spec and combatting the virus has more priority in every country in the EU. Not at all handling out fines.

Although France is not implementing the standard protocol. They are very protective of citizens data ( not even a city can access it).

( Source: my work is related to this in Belgium and France)

You have some data in the hands of any government, and once you have a judge's approval, the data will be obtained by the authority regardless where you are. It makes sense that the data should be stored on your devices only. If a criminal is caught with his phone, the data can still be obtained by the police (the same as phone records for example), and it can still be useful for criminal investigation, and normal citizen don't have to worry about their data. It is actually achievable with Google and Apple's approach.

And I think it was a genuine answer. This is a reply to MP, not a random reporter on streets.

I believe you're missing the point.

At first, they explain the information is collected solely for medical reasons. Now they say they can use it as they please. Don't you see fallacy here?

I am sure it was a genuine answer - that's why I was surprised. Usually those things are sugar covered.

>At first, they explain the information is collected solely for medical reasons. Now they say they can use it as they please. Don't you see fallacy here?

Technically not a fallacy (as there's no logical fault in what they said). Just falling back on a promise to the public.

It's not a logical fallacy, but it's still a fallacy.

You keep using this word "fallacy". I don't think it means what you think it means [1]

(a) a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.

(b) a misleading or unsound argument.

(d) Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

[1] to paraphrase "The Princess Bride"

This usage fits definitions a, b, and c. This very definition draws a distinction between a 'fallacy' and a 'logical fallacy'

>This usage fits definitions a, b, and c.

No, it doesn't.

Government: - "We will use data just for medical purposes"

Government (later): - "Guess what, we lied/we recant: we will use them for other state purposes too".

There's nothing fallacious in (a), (b) or (c) way about either statement or the whole situation.

It's a brilliant example of doublethink you did there.

Not only that, it's also the counterexample to calling "slippery slope" a fallacy. After all, slippery slope is not a fallacy if the slope is, in fact, slippery.

Everything is permitted...

Without a system that gives strong enough negative feedbacks to this kind of "usage", they will never go away.

Lack of negative feedback can be seen as a kind of positive feedback too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com