Comment by jesboat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jesboat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

1. Some background process, probably part of Google Play services, installed the app. Users were not notified that the app was installed. Eventually the app, once already installed and running, would put up a notification asking if the user wanted to participate.

The app was intentionally subtle, in that it had no application icon, which would presumably make it very difficult for user to disable contract tracing if they had enabled it. If you managed to uninstall the app, it would get reinstalled silently again.

2. The lawsuit alleges that there was no legal requirement or court order. Even if there had been, the lawsuit argues that the conduct would still have violated federal and state law and constitutions.

It is really pretty shitty, and, IANAL, probably is/was illegal, with the caveats that (a) I'm not sure whether Massachusetts or Google or both should be considered responsible; and (b) they might try to argue that a user's acceptance of Google's ToS and privacy policy constitutes permission.

> 2. The lawsuit alleges that there was no legal requirement or court order. Even if there had been, the lawsuit argues that the conduct would still have violated federal and state law and constitutions.

I would think the lack of a legal requirement or court order would actually absolve Massachusetts, as it would leave the responsibility resting on Google. Surely within the terms of Play store etc, Google has the power to do anything they'd like to your device and personal information. And that power extends to Google's actions when working with other parties.

I'm most definitely not a fan of mass surveillance or centralized control. But running an operating system developed by a surveillance company, to which they have multiple backdoors and frontdoors, is fundamentally a surrender to these terrible things.

The main thing that makes this different than every other Google update is that the government of Massachusetts was also involved, for a "greater good" public health purpose rather than the usual lucre.

Now, if we had real privacy protection (either legislative or common law) to the point that processing individuals' private information were illegal, even regardless of any contracts purporting the opposite, then there could be a claim. But something tells me this suit isn't looking to go that far.

It seems just moderately shitty. They did it with good intentions and there is no indication they misused the data. Despite that, clearly a mistake and some form of lawsuit is warranted. I guess "disappointed and hope they learned their lesson, what a crazy time to live through, I am happy we can all move on" doesn't drive engagement.

Nothing they did nears being as shitty as what the "Civil Liberties Alliance" represent. They are a bunch of bought and sold lawyers that trick us little people into believing they are pro-freedom with stunts like this, when their actual goal is deregulating in the context of worker safety, environmental, and food and drug safety to increase profits of industry. They get the votes they need for this from the evangelical movement, who they pay back by pushing for a radical reinterpretation the first amendment. Their end goal is a religious state with unregulated, unaccountable capitalism. To call them monsters is unfair to monsters.

Not everything requires a good guy and a bad guy. "Everybody Sucks Here" applied here.

> They did it with good intentions

That's how the road to hell is paved.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

- C. S. Lewis

I've heard that somewhere before! And it's a good point, I'm glad you brought it up. I'm not defending the action, removed from context. However, intent does matter to me and is a well established legal consideration. Note the distinction between first, second, and third degree homicide for just one example. Just plain common sense application: I will feel differently if I am hit while crossing the street by 1) an ambulance speeding to save a mother and infant in preterm labor 2) a teen driver negligently text 3) someone speeding to get somewhere on time 4) a drunk driver 5) someone swerving to hit me because they don't like people like me for some reason. I am still mashed by a car and in rehab for a year, regardless, so is it unreasonable of me to feel differently which of those cases it is?

edit: To reply to your late edit, " It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies" is magnificent, because it correctly frames the NCLA lawsuit "The robber baron's cruelty". I can recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing or trojan horse, whatever your preferred metaphor is.

I would reply "No thank you to either option, but thanks for the books, C.S. Lewis"

final edit: dmix, I am rate limited, so I can't reply to you, and I've written more than enough already. But you make a fair point, and it seems in good faith. I agree with you in general. I don't generally agree with something because someone claims, "it's for widows and orphans", which is the cliche. I just disagree with you in this particular set of circumstances. I would agree with a different lawsuit made in good faith meant to remediate the injury to the claimants.

People often use those good intentions to silence dissent. If anyone questions their actions you can just spin it to say "well then you obviously don't care about [good intention, ie “grandmas dying of COVID”]".

So they are a very critical piece of the puzzle with this sort of abuse of power. They can very easily muddy the waters and obfuscate things.

It's often the side effects of their actions anyway. In this case the access the app provides is the side effect. The side effects outweighing the alleged benefits is what matters. Easily the most often recurring problem is politics. 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

A tyranny exercised with good intentions "may" be worse than all possible ones? Weak.

So, that includes all possible versions of good intentions? All good intentions lead to torment? There are no sociopathic tyrants lacking conscience?

Anyway, I doubt Yahweh considers it a sin to install tracking software onto people's phones.

> Anyway, I doubt Yahweh considers it a sin to

I don't give a damn what your god thinks. Or are you responding to C.S. Lewis's beliefs? Quoting a Christian doesn't make me a Christian, least of all when the quote doesn't even present a religious argument.

> They did it with good intentions and there is no indication they misused the data.

There is a very old proverb from Abbot Bernard of Clairvauxin in the 1100s that is still applicable today, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Wait ... what (?) ... 'good intentions' are not very relevant here.

I don't care what Koch's other objectives might be, this is an ugly transgression of people's rights.

Arbitrary government surveillance is an incredibly bad thing and a very slippery slope.

We're witnessing governments around the world establishing '360 Surveillance' for all sorts of 'socially positive!', but ultimately dubious reasons.

If the government had specific reason to grab information about a specific person and a lawfully obtained warrant given a specific set of circumstances - then yes.

Or if we're talking the government buying generalized anonymoized information that is publicly available otherwise - then yes.

But slipping spyware onto phones is straight outrageous.

I'm generally a communitarian type person who believes we ought to step up and do the right thing as citizens but even I recognize this as the slipperiest of all slopes irrespective of their reasoning, and I can't fathom the tone of the comments here given that this is HN with usually a distinctly more libertarian-ish leaning.

"Not everything requires a good guy and a bad guy. "Everybody Sucks Here" applied here. "

Sorry but the 'Government of Mass' are the 'Bad Guys' here and the 'Koch Brothers' (or whoever is paying for this, I don't care) are the 'Good Guys' for going after them. That's it.

This will hopefully be resolved in the courts.

Good intentions, good grief!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com