Yes. Obviously. There's plenty of privacy destroying actions a society could take that would "save lives" but we don't do these exactly because of the encroachment on civil liberties they would entail.

That's a false dichotomy between option A), have your students sit exams in person and kill people, and option B), grossly invade your students' privacy with obnoxious spyware. Option C), just trust your students to take exams at home and slightly dilute the signal of your test scores, has always been on the table and is a totally viable alternative.

Is giving up your privacy bringing them back to life? The problem isn't the relative weighting, it's the implication that they're in any way linked.

Is it easier to kill people who have no privacy? History shows us the answer to that question is "yes".

Are there any simple generally understandable comebacks to cheap rhetorical tricks like this?

If you answer "no", the same logic can be used to strip you of all your rights. How much domestic violence and murder could be prevented if every home was required to have cameras and microphones installed?

There is no fucking connection between the two. We can have privacy and no deaths.

Yes.

I said it about the Patriot Act and I say it about this.

These ideas aren't so bad when they are voluntary, but that is never enough. There is inherently a power behind this where a small group needs to force a large group to do what they say.

> Is the privacy of many more important than the life of few?

That's a judgement call to which people will have different reactions.

One way to look at it is to ask if there are other mechanisms to accomplish the same/similar goal, then ask which of these mechanisms is most aligned with our values.

A recent Lex Fridman interview of Po-Shen Loh [0] covered a privacy protecting NPI approach. An interesting aspect of the approach is that it works with people's self-interest of taking steps to stay healthy instead of attempting to work against people's self-interest in not being quarantined.

0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z1JwZbX4dQ

1. https://www.novid.org/

2. https://www.poshenloh.com/

Just consider the number of persons that died in the history fighting to earn and preserve your privacy!

Unlike other posters, I think this is a valid question. I mean, it's heart rate and temperature, not your porn habits or diary or whatever. If the availability of that data could potentially save many lives, why is it so bad to gather it?

I mean, if we're in favor of universal health care where, by some rhetoric, we're forcing people at gunpoint to give their money to save others, why is this so bad?

Unequivocally, yes.