21 votes

After 9/11, Americans gave up privacy for security. Will we make the same trade-off after COVID-19?

21 comments

  1. [16]
    bloup
    Link
    I wish more people would talk about how if we organized institutions from the bottom up and made them mission-oriented (kind of like tildes.net!) rather than state run or for-profit private...

    I wish more people would talk about how if we organized institutions from the bottom up and made them mission-oriented (kind of like tildes.net!) rather than state run or for-profit private interests of some kind of owner class, we wouldn't even really have to make this compromise. Wouldn't it be great if you could trust some kind of organization like Google to use your location data, because if they exploited that trust they could actually be held accountable and it's not just like a "that's business! better luck next time..." sort of deal?

    15 votes
    1. [2]
      nacho
      Link Parent
      You're onto something interesting here. Additionally, Americans seem very willing to give away plenty of sensitive data to corporations that demonstrably misuse that information way more than the...

      You're onto something interesting here.

      Additionally, Americans seem very willing to give away plenty of sensitive data to corporations that demonstrably misuse that information way more than the government.

      Those who've been trying to propagate the view that giving information to those who want to make money off it is perfectly fine, but giving it to the government is really a terrible, inexcusably bad thing have managed very well. That split isn't nearly as clear in the societies in Europe I know well.

      That's part of creating the whole view that government-run things are bad, and government is bad, while private completely profit-focused business is good. It's disheartening to see how pervasive or even "natural" view that is among many.

      12 votes
      1. Gaywallet
        Link Parent
        That's what happens when you let for-profit businesses run your country. They do everything they can to consolidate power.

        That's part of creating the whole view that government-run things are bad, and government is bad, while private completely profit-focused business is good. It's disheartening to see how pervasive or even "natural" view that is among many.

        That's what happens when you let for-profit businesses run your country. They do everything they can to consolidate power.

        8 votes
    2. skybrian
      Link Parent
      There is almost always a need for compromise, because people disagree. Some governance mechanism is needed to revolve the disagreement. Some will be disappointed. I think differential privacy is...

      There is almost always a need for compromise, because people disagree. Some governance mechanism is needed to revolve the disagreement. Some will be disappointed.

      I think differential privacy is interesting.

      1 vote
    3. [2]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. bloup
        Link Parent
        I don't really have much of a problem with "trading units of a good or a service for a specified amount of money". It's just that the only reason we should ever be "trading units of a good or a...

        I don't really have much of a problem with "trading units of a good or a service for a specified amount of money". It's just that the only reason we should ever be "trading units of a good or a service for a specified amount of money" is when the producer of the good or service genuinely believes the product being provided would improve the well-being of whoever they are selling it to, and the sale price has been calculated to optimize the producer's ability to provide the good or service to as many people as possible. If you want an example of a nonprofit, mission-oriented organization that primarily finances itself through the sale of consumer goods and operates in the manner I just described, check out https://www.raspberrypi.org/.

        4 votes
    4. [11]
      Autoxidation
      Link Parent
      Are there any examples of institutions run like that?

      Are there any examples of institutions run like that?

      1. [10]
        bloup
        Link Parent
        Not as many as I'd like, but I hope it changes. Here's a few that come to mind: Wikipedia Raspberry Pi Foundation Mozilla Tildes https://sdf.org/ Debian Linux Foundation Internet Archive

        Not as many as I'd like, but I hope it changes. Here's a few that come to mind:

        Wikipedia
        Raspberry Pi Foundation
        Mozilla
        Tildes
        https://sdf.org/
        Debian
        Linux Foundation
        Internet Archive

        6 votes
        1. [8]
          skybrian
          Link Parent
          Thanks for giving examples. From what little I know about how they are governed, it doesn't seem like these organizations have governance models with much in common? For example, @Deimos makes all...

          Thanks for giving examples. From what little I know about how they are governed, it doesn't seem like these organizations have governance models with much in common? For example, @Deimos makes all the decisions for Tildes. This is pretty common for small open source projects, but it's not like Debian, which has elections.

          It might be interesting to learn about how governance works in practice for different organizations. Too often, the mechanics are obscured by abstractions like "accountability."

          7 votes
          1. [7]
            bloup
            Link Parent
            It's not so much about governance, it's about who it's supposed to be benefiting.

            It's not so much about governance, it's about who it's supposed to be benefiting.

            2 votes
            1. [6]
              skybrian
              Link Parent
              Who benefits is a matter of opinion. For example, Google's philosophy has traditionally been to put users first. But you might have a different idea of what that means than they do. The people who...

              Who benefits is a matter of opinion. For example, Google's philosophy has traditionally been to put users first. But you might have a different idea of what that means than they do.

              The people who put privacy first and the people who put public health first are both justifying what they do as being for public benefit.

              4 votes
              1. [5]
                bloup
                Link Parent
                It's not a matter of opinion at all, especially in the case of a publicly traded company like Google, which literally has a legal obligation to its shareholders to make them as much money as...

                It's not a matter of opinion at all, especially in the case of a publicly traded company like Google, which literally has a legal obligation to its shareholders to make them as much money as legally possible. A for-profit company is called "for-profit" because it's, well, for profit, specifically for the profit of its shareholders. Making the owners some amount of passive income is literally always the number 1 goal of a for-profit company. Contrast this with nonprofit organizations which do not have owners and are supposed to exist in order to solve some kind of social problem.

                1 vote
                1. [4]
                  Deimos
                  Link Parent
                  People repeat this constantly, but it's not actually true.

                  which literally has a legal obligation to its shareholders to make them as much money as legally possible

                  People repeat this constantly, but it's not actually true.

                  4 votes
                  1. [3]
                    bloup
                    Link Parent
                    Wow, that's so strange. I have heard this claim in so many places, everywhere from Al Franken to the New York Times. I will say that I was under the impression that it was limited only to publicly...

                    Wow, that's so strange. I have heard this claim in so many places, everywhere from Al Franken to the New York Times.

                    I will say that I was under the impression that it was limited only to publicly traded corporations.

                    But does this mean you could, for example, convince a bunch of shareholders to make you the CEO of an oil company and then run the company into the ground, and as long as you never actually stole any money or exploited your position to personally enrich yourself, all they could do is fire you?

                    1. [2]
                      Deimos
                      Link Parent
                      Of course, companies get run into the ground all the time. Investors can sue in cases like securities fraud where the company is hiding information about how poorly they're doing, but it's not...

                      Of course, companies get run into the ground all the time. Investors can sue in cases like securities fraud where the company is hiding information about how poorly they're doing, but it's not illegal to just run a company badly (and definitely not to run it well but not "optimally").

                      3 votes
                      1. bloup
                        Link Parent
                        I don't mean just being bad at your job, I mean actively undermining the operations of the company with malice and intention.

                        I don't mean just being bad at your job, I mean actively undermining the operations of the company with malice and intention.

        2. Autoxidation
          Link Parent
          Thanks for the examples, but all of these are pretty small or niche, compared to state-run institutions. Are there any countries that do this at a state run level?

          Thanks for the examples, but all of these are pretty small or niche, compared to state-run institutions. Are there any countries that do this at a state run level?

  2. [3]
    Diet_Coke
    Link
    You know, if we had a President Obama, or even Clinton, or even Romney, I'd probably trust the government to use mobile phone data to help people quarantine. However I have not one single iota of...

    You know, if we had a President Obama, or even Clinton, or even Romney, I'd probably trust the government to use mobile phone data to help people quarantine. However I have not one single iota of doubt that Trump would abuse this power to further hurt communities of color and activists.

    8 votes
    1. Gaywallet
      Link Parent
      Given that a variety of republican institutions have already been found to be repeatedly doing this, this is almost a certainty.

      Trump would abuse this power to further hurt communities of color and activists.

      Given that a variety of republican institutions have already been found to be repeatedly doing this, this is almost a certainty.

      8 votes
    2. vord
      Link Parent
      I wouldn't, if only because once these powers are granted, they're never revoked. That hasn't worked well for literally any other time emergency powers were granted.

      I wouldn't, if only because once these powers are granted, they're never revoked.

      That hasn't worked well for literally any other time emergency powers were granted.

      2 votes
  3. skybrian
    (edited )
    Link
    From the article: [...] [...] [...]

    From the article:

    By tapping into people’s phones and medical records, researchers and public health authorities are hoping to more swiftly identify and isolate potentially infected patients and corral a pandemic that is outrunning them despite unprecedented restrictions on daily life.

    Underscoring the urgency, the federal agency in charge of policing data breaches is now saying it will back off enforcement of certain privacy rules to make it easier for hospitals and their vendors to share patient medical records with public health officials. Meanwhile, the nation’s tech behemoths are collecting health information through Covid-19 symptom checkers, data that could prove invaluable to disease trackers when combined with travel and location data from smartphones.

    “There are times that not using the information that we have is morally hard to defend, and I think this is one of them,” said Michelle Mello, a health law professor at Stanford University.

    [...]

    Several research projects are underway to use apps and phone data to speed up contact tracing to identify people who have crossed paths with a newly diagnosed patient, so they can be isolated and tested before they infect others. The coronavirus is spreading too fast now to carry out that work using the traditional approach, which involves dispatching an army of public health workers to interview infected patients and ask about their recent activities and social contacts.

    [...]

    The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has teamed up with Facebook, Mayo Clinic, and other organizations to create an app that collects information using a technique known as differential privacy, a way of publicly sharing information gleaned from a data set without identifying the individuals whose activities are represented.

    The app scrambles data so that people who voluntarily contribute their information are not identified. Users of the app, dubbed Private Kit: Safe Paths, would be able to edit their information before it is relayed to public health officials, who could see the location of new infections but not the names of the people connected to them. The data would also be encrypted to prevent a hacker from accessing identifiable information.

    [...]

    The nation’s primary health privacy law, known as HIPAA, includes language allowing federal officials to waive privacy rules in case of a public health crisis, and officials have already exercised those provisions to allow for greater sharing of patient medical records for public health purposes and to support increased access to telemedicine services. But the 1996 law was passed when health data were primarily in the hands of hospitals, physician offices, and insurance companies — before Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Google became so pervasive in American life, posing threats to privacy and individual freedoms that lawmakers could not have contemplated at the time.

    4 votes
  4. vord
    Link
    Remember all the rhetoric at the time? 'Don't change your lives or the terrorists win!' Well...I wouldn't say they won, but they certainly didn't lose by that metric either. The police state...

    Remember all the rhetoric at the time? 'Don't change your lives or the terrorists win!'

    Well...I wouldn't say they won, but they certainly didn't lose by that metric either. The police state gained a ton of power less than 2 weeks after 9/11, and we've been waging an especially never ending war ever since.

    4 votes