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

71–80 of 88 posts

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

#71

Post by nixenboxen »

perl4ever wrote: post #49
TeMPOraL wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

This is a false equivalence and you and everyone else who keeps making it know it. It makes zero sense to say that the current number of deaths is less than deaths from climate change or cars because those deaths aren't (at the moment) rapidly increasing exponentially. Do you think the deaths will just magically stop? What people apparently forget is that mortality rates jump (for everything) when your healthcare system collapses, as it did in Northern Italy, as it is about to in New York, and as it will everywhere else in a week or two because of flippant attitudes like yours.

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

#72

Post by nixenboxen »

1996 wrote: post #40
TeMPOraL wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any other restriction on the freedom of movement and freedom of assembly People abusing these freedoms in spite of lockdowns are what's going to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the coming days.

If the cost of liberty is hundred thousands of life, let it be. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

I want you to personally visit the families of every dead person after this and say this to them.

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

#73

Post by TeMPOraL »

perl4ever wrote: post #49
TeMPOraL wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

> 150,000 fatalities

Which COVID-19 will reach quite soon now.

Infecting someone through stupidity or ill will is closer to putting poison in their food than to driving a car.

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

#74

Post by jlokier »

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.

Yes, I agree, your own life is important too.

If you're not familiar with "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose", it refers to when your exercise of your personal freedom deprives another person of their personal freedom.

> The freedoms enshrined upon us by the constitution are not negotiable

And yet here you are, advocating depriving people of their freedom to live.

In the present case, your right to freely wander around, asymptomatically spreading COVID-19 contributes to depriving others of their freedom, by killing and disabling them.

The cold harsh reality of the biological world right now is that some freedoms exercised by a person are causally depriving other persons of those same freedoms.

You might not like that, but it appears to be the state of biological nature right now.

To assert that the freedoms enshrined by the constitution are "not negotiable" involves irony, denial and paradox: Because in exercising those freedoms, you yourself are taking them away from other people.

That's my argument and moral basis, anyway. The point is to persuade you to comply voluntarily due to compassion, whereby you ideally make the choice to do so out of consideration for the welfare of others in a situation where your actions affect others.

I've been stuck at home for a while now, so as to not kill another person staying with me. It's not like I enjoy being stuck at home.

I'll be mighty unhappy, and unimpressed by constitutional arguments, if they get killed or disabled because other people make an informed decision that their inalienable right to spread COVID-19 outweighs my person's inalienable right to life, liberty and dignity.

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

#75

Post by jlokier »

1996 wrote: post #55
aplummer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> those actions are at least illegal in California. Time will tell if California had the right to treat the constitution just like toilet paper. I know TP in short supply there at the moment, but the end doesn't justify the means. That's what constitutions are for.

Constitutions are for many things.

A well written constitution allows for provisions to be suspended and outweighed in a state of emergency. Ideally it has a mechanism for doing so where possible, and for limiting the effect and scrutinising it, treating such a state as a serious exception to the normal state of things.

Constitutions are a tool and an inspiration for better society. They are not able to anticipate or codify every situation, though. Ideally they themselves codify recognition of that, and govern how exceptions are to be handled with care.

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

#76

Post by jlokier »

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.

> I chose mine.

Yes, you chose "harming other people in a deadly way".

At which point other people's constitutionally enshrined freedom to defense of self and other kicks in, and they can detain you.

The constitution does not necessarily support your side in that situation, although it should support your right to be treated with dignity while detained, and to let you express your argument.

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

#77

Post by honzzz »

Czech volunteer group Covid19cz involving some big Czech companies and in cooperation with the Czech government are going to launch their tracking system which they claim is GDPR compliant, based on experiences learned from other countries like South Korea and packaged to be rolled out to other countries. I am not associated with them, I just think it is worth mentioning here.

https://bit.ly/394M4w3

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

#79

Post by xenonite »

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?

Yes, please see the discussion in the second study. They cite the findings of an investigative team of the WHO for the infections in the same building, and add their own findings to explain infections other buildings (which the WHO didn't explain). And yes, both the WHO and the study states open windows as inlets for the aerosols.

In my opinion, this also explains the measures in China: here a whole building is evacuated and quarantined if one single person in the building is tested positive.

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

#80

Post by nicky0 »

cjbprime wrote: post #57
johnnyAghands wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using Bluetooth to detect potential contact + plus GPS seem like a good way to cover a lot of ground. Anyways I feel like the bigger issue is the huge honeypot problem. I think it's easier to assume data like this is bound to leak -- so what can we do to make it useless besides for its intended purpose? I mean it doesn't have to protect against like a state backed program to track an individual -- but it should prote…

The Singapore model encrypts it until someone is diagnosed. So the leak is of the thing you would tell a contact tracer anyway..

And who holds the encryption key?
Post reply on HN