Comment by fabian2k | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fabian2k | Hacker News Reader

The permissions mentioned sound like someone that doesn't understand the permissions systems used by Android and iPhone tried to translate them. So this part of the article is almost useless as it is hard to figure out what permissions the app actually has.

I don't understand the Android permissions system well enough here, but I would be especially curious about which API version this is targeting as I don't know how far back you can still go currently to avoid some of the stricter file access permissions newer versions added. As far as I can tell the most problematic storage-related permission in modern Android would be "MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE" meant for apps like file browsers. And if the app actually requests this permission (or intentionally uses an older API level to get equivalent access) that would be a very clear and specific overreach.

But I would also not be surprised at all if this kind of app asks for excessive permissions, and then provides a lot of telemetry and analytics and sends them somewhere. And in a country where e.g. homosexuality is illegal this kind of stuff presents additional dangers beyond compromising your privacy.

From my phone: I have Eteraz installed

Read and Write to the file system - required to allow storage of a small encrypted file which holds a unique ID, QR code, infection status, configuration parameters, and proximity data of other devices using the Application.

Not much more than a cookie.

You can't know what it is reading though. The app could theoretically be sending all your photos to the government. Would be interesting to see someone reverse engineering it.

Is there a reason this must be in the user's file location and not in the app's own internal files?

"And in a country where e.g. homosexuality is illegal this kind of stuff presents additional dangers beyond compromising your privacy."

What are the dangers if you respect the laws of that country? You are in danger in any country if you entry it with the intent of breaking the laws.

Some of the players must be homosexual? Should they not enter Qatar, and scrafice playing for their country in the World Cup? Should Fifa hold the world cup in a country when some of their players could be prosecuted because of their sexuality?

FIFA was criticized for hosting the World Cup in a country that persecutes homosexuals. FIFA responded by extracting some concessionary-sounding statements from some Quatari officials. But the law hasn’t changed. Homosexuals who visit Qatar are most certainly still facing elevated risks. FIFA should be ashamed, but I suspect nobody has bribed them enough to activate their shame reflex yet.

Qatar also practices modern-day slavery.

https://dohanews.co/report-qatar-fifth-highest-proportion-sl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar#Slavery

I know it was more to talk about the slavery and human rights half but it’s sort of fascinating to see flogging in the penalty list. Makes me wonder if that would be a more effective punitive deterrent against recidivism. While I know some people get off from it and it wouldn’t deter everyone, I have to wonder how much more viscerally unwilling to risk the punishment the average criminal would be if instead of 6 months or a year or two, you got 10 to 100 with the lash. Is it more humane to have the violence over quickly and let the rehabilitation begin nearly immediately? Or better they rot away in jail mentally and emotionally for months to years making more associations with other criminals the longer they are in jail?

I think the latter is better, simply because it can be upgraded to its next step, which is to shift the focus of the jail time from punishment to rehabilitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_%28penology%29

In general I don't think punishments work. I can't imagine one goes back to being a productive, and wholesome person after 100 lashes in public. And other first world leaders seem to think the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment#Internatio...

The danger is enabling them and normalizing these particular laws.

It's objectively wrong to punish people for being gay.

laws that make simply existing illegal are dangerous by definition.

not to mention greater dangers to society

I think laws against being gay are wrong, but I have to disagree with your argument that they are laws against existing. You can be gay "inside" but never act on it. That should suffice for you to not get "punished".

Besides the fact that these are terrible conditions for a population to live under, I'm not sure you realise how gay people can be perceived and persecuted in these countries, for those visiting for the world cup I can imagine a lot of problem scenarios.

A couple might try to stay at a hotel in a room together, but because they are both men it could suddenly become a serious problem. Maybe they aren't even a couple and are two friends trying to get a cheaper room, but they get arrested and have to prove they are not gay.

A couple might want to enjoy dinner together at a restaurant, maybe that becomes a problem.

A couple might have "incriminating" pictures on their phone and be arrested.

I don't know how it is in Qatar, but I've been to Russia with 2 other men (all heterosexual) and we stayed in the same room which had only one king-sized bed and a separate, single bed. Two of the guys slept on the king-sized bed (which was big enough for them to not get too close for comfort) but I suppose a gay couple would've been quite happy with the arrangement. No on asked us if we were a gay triangle or something... the hotel was very luxurious so that's all we could afford with the company credit card :D. I am mentioning this because I believe Russia has laws "against gays" similar to Qatar (not sure how similar) but the laws, at least in theory, are about "promoting homosexuality" or something on those lines... I think being openly gay itself is not a crime except in very few, extremely relegious countries, and it's only when you're seen as promoting your lifestyle to others that it becomes unacceptable to them (and I suspect a lot of people in the West would actually agree with that). I suspect, however, that you're right you may get into trouble if you display affection to same-sex partners in public in Qatar... but that may be harder than you think given how in many muslim countries, it's common for men to kiss each other in the cheek... I guess that with some care, you may be seen just as unusually close friends.

Seriously? You're just gonna act like it's okay for them to have laws against being gay?

It's for Quatar to decide what their laws are. They aren't telling other countries what their laws should be.

Why this condescending tone and sense of moral superiority?

Why this defense of laws that go against basic human rights?

Because for some people, the notion of sovereignty is more important than human rights.

The problem is that then leads you to a strange place where you're ok with a government persecuting / murdering its own people because it's the law of the land.

If a country makes Islam illegal, would you think some Muslim countries would try to tell to that country to change its laws or not?

What are the dangers if you respect the laws of that country?

In order to do that you'd need to know the laws of the country because ignorance of the law is not a defence. I imagine very few football fans are reading up on Quatar's legal system. So, really, trying to stay within the law is probably very hard, especially if you go there with a set of Western values.

As a simple example, Qatar has law about "public morals" where showing too much skin is considered indecent, which technically means wearing shorts or your country's football shirt is a criminal offence. Are you suggesting football fans don't wear their team's shirt out of "respect for the country's laws"?

It's very unlikely that the Qatar authorities will enforce that law, but they certainly could use it as a basis to question someone. If they then find out that person is gay, or if that person can't prove they're not gay, then you're in very murky "respect the law" water.

> As a simple example, Qatar has law about "public morals" where showing too much skin is considered indecent

Maybe that's just a bad example, but without knowing exactly how much skin is tolerated, that's just a normal law pretty much everywhere.

Does your country allow public nudity on stadiums and on public streets? If not, you've got the same law in your country... without knowing the "threashold" it's hard to say the Qatar law is unusual even compared to the most liberal western democracies.

>Maybe that's just a bad example, but without knowing exactly how much skin is tolerated, that's just a normal law pretty much everywhere.

I'll counter that. I think it is a really good example. Everyone has public decency laws - but we probably don't think about looking them up. It is entirely possible many of us are currently breaking the law on that front without knowing it.

By handing the government a list of everything we have worn over the past X years, we are giving them the ability to prosecute us on all past violations.

This is what makes the app dangerous- we are handing them a list of many past activities that they can use to decide if they will prosecute us on.

"In order to do that you'd need to know the laws of the country because ignorance of the law is not a defence."

That is true for any country. You better inform yourself what the laws are and what their customs are in order to not break the laws or offense the locals.

Nobody forces you to travel to that country if their laws and customs conflict with your particular set of values.

Is this website even moderated anymore? Every time I visit Hacker News it gets even more extremist.

Saying that you are better by respecting the laws is extremism? Since when?

Since it became “rounding up the gays is fine actually because my steadfast adherence to a schoolboy framework of moral relativism is more important”.

There are too many people here who care more about delivering what they think is a clever counterpoint, while being proud of denying the existence of 'soft' forms of intelligence, empathy and morality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com