Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

safepaths.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

#41

Post by 1996 »

jlokier wrote: post #36
aplummer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. It’s so selfish to sacrifice other people’s lives for your own delusional paranoia.

It's worse than delusional paranoia. Because it's not necessarily delusional, or paranoid. Give them the benefit of the doubt: Assume they are competent, healthy adults, who really believe in what they say. With that assumed, it's someone choosing to sacrifice other people's lives for their political values. Personally I think that situation crosses the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" line. We should…

> With that assumed, it's someone choosing to sacrifice other people's lives for their political values.

No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too.

The freedoms enshrined upon us by the constitution are not negotiable. "shall make no law" admits no exception.

> we have to choose priorities

I chose mine.

Re: Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

#42

Post by dennisy »

xenonite wrote: post #34

I don’t think this is reliable enough if you like to stay safe while being out, although it seems better than nothing. Considering that aerosols are a plausible infection vector, it becomes necessary to introduce air flow models that include building ventilations for a reliable outcome of location based monitoring. Honestly, I consider this a major, and quite risky undertaking. Already a retrospective analysis of who…

Sorry for what is probably a silly question, but are you saying someone can be infected through an open window?

Re: Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

#43

Post by macspoofing »

simmanian wrote: post #35

I had been a staunch advocate of not sharing any personal information wherever possible, but recently I've been thinking whether I've approached the whole privacy issue from a wrong angle. Maybe there isn't anything wrong with sharing our data and information for the public good. After all, we almost view it self-evident that transparency is good for communities at large. The real issue is that most of the parties wh…

>Maybe there isn't anything wrong with sharing our data and information for the public good

Define 'public good'. Is counter-terrorism a 'public good' ... for example?

Re: Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

#44

Post by contravariant »

simmanian wrote: post #35

I had been a staunch advocate of not sharing any personal information wherever possible, but recently I've been thinking whether I've approached the whole privacy issue from a wrong angle. Maybe there isn't anything wrong with sharing our data and information for the public good. After all, we almost view it self-evident that transparency is good for communities at large. The real issue is that most of the parties wh…

Verifiable and transparent are very much the key words there.

Currently the only way to share personal information is to basically just hand it someone you think should be trustworthy, who does god knows what with it. And that's if you even get that level of control, and whomever you handed your data previously isn't sharing it on your behalf.

Re: Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

#45

Post by slavik81 »

simmanian wrote: post #35

I had been a staunch advocate of not sharing any personal information wherever possible, but recently I've been thinking whether I've approached the whole privacy issue from a wrong angle. Maybe there isn't anything wrong with sharing our data and information for the public good. After all, we almost view it self-evident that transparency is good for communities at large. The real issue is that most of the parties wh…

The problem is that you can't take the data back when good organizations turn bad. Maybe you trusted the US government in 1940 when you took the census, but in 1942 they showed up at your door to take you away if you had listed yourself as Japanese.

If you lived in the Netherlands in the 1930s, you may have had a great deal of trust in your government. They collected extensive population data and did a lot of good with it. When the Nazis invaded, they got access to the same systems. It made their genocide much more effective than in neighbouring countries.

Re: Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

#46

Post by divbzero »

cjbprime wrote: post #16

Singapore's doing contact tracing without any location data, and with contact between devices encrypted until needed for a contact disclosure. Seems like a better approach to me: https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/asia-pacific/singapore-g...

This sounds like Apple’s Find My feature with location stripped out.

Still, location could be useful for individuals without smartphones or who have newly installed the app.

Re: Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

#48

Post by jmalicki »

dennisy wrote: post #42
xenonite wrote: post #34

I don’t think this is reliable enough if you like to stay safe while being out, although it seems better than nothing. Considering that aerosols are a plausible infection vector, it becomes necessary to introduce air flow models that include building ventilations for a reliable outcome of location based monitoring. Honestly, I consider this a major, and quite risky undertaking. Already a retrospective analysis of who…

Sorry for what is probably a silly question, but are you saying someone can be infected through an open window?

In the second study, they are claiming that people were infected through their building's ventilation.

Re: Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

#49

Post by perl4ever »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #28
perl4ever wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's being taken for granted that nearly everybody (Cuomo just said 80%) is going to get it, so it doesn't make sense to get angry at someone for increasing your risk of catching it. The efforts to slow the spread are about giving the healthcare system time to cope. So, yes, people are being antisocial if they don't follow the rules but it's not sane to treat it like you're personally being assaulted. This isn't ebol…

> The efforts to slow the spread are about giving the healthcare system time to cope. So, yes, people are being antisocial if they don't follow the rules but it's not sane to treat it like you're personally being assaulted. This isn't ebola or HIV. No. It should be treated as attempted mass murder. Because this is what it boils down to: one idiot causing a bunch of deaths downstream, plus some more by contributing to…

The impact of global warming is estimated at 150,000 fatalities[1] per year currently, which so far is significantly more than the epidemic. Do you think that automobile drivers should be treated as "attempted mass murderers"? It is even the same people telling us about that and coronavirus - the WHO.

[1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-an...

Re: Private Kit: Can we slow the spread without giving up individual privacy?

#50

Post by aplummer »

1996 wrote: post #41
jlokier wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than delusional paranoia. Because it's not necessarily delusional, or paranoid. Give them the benefit of the doubt: Assume they are competent, healthy adults, who really believe in what they say. With that assumed, it's someone choosing to sacrifice other people's lives for their political values. Personally I think that situation crosses the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" line. We should…

> With that assumed, it's someone choosing to sacrifice other people's lives for their political values. No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too. The freedoms enshrined upon us by the constitution are not negotiable. "shall make no law" admits no exception. > we have to choose priorities I chose mine.

> No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too.

Glad you don’t get to make that decision on behalf of other people, and those actions are at least illegal in California.

I also think it’s nonsense to imply you are putting yourself at any real risk, if you were immunocompromised or elderly you wouldn’t have such a callous attitude.

Post reply on HN