Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

https://forklog.media/safety-over-freedom-how-governments-introduce-surveillance-under-veil-of-coronavirus-control/

by likhuta • 6 years ago

145 110 6 years ago

It’s too bad that people can’t follow simple requests. Governments are forced to choose between allowing idiot citizens to destroy society or to implement draconian policies.

Medical professionals are being asked to come out of retirement. Nurses are reusing PPE for weeks. Medical students are graduating early to help.

The rest of us are being asked to just stay the fuck home for a few weeks.

And we just refuse to do it. Absolutely refuse. Everyone is suddenly and avid walker. So then governments have to choose whether to let idiot citizens ruin everything... or not.

I don’t blame governments. I blame all you idiots who won’t stop going outside.

heurifk• 6 years ago

If you want to be cool then you say "fuck the government, fuck the police". Its a big part of the reason, a lot of people want to show off by breaking rules for street cred.

iamben2• 6 years ago

I'm not sure it's that simple. I think most people breaking the rules just think it doesn't apply to them. Like they're healthy, they're low risk, they're good at following all the other rules ("we won't get close to anyone while we're out, we won't touch anything we shouldn't").

I assume it's a bit like washing your hands after using the toilet. Most people do. I don't think those that don't are saying fuck you to society - they just think "I didn't pee on my hands, there's no mess here".

I guess if something doesn't immediately affect you, it's easy to think it will never affect you and it's not your problem to deal with.

swiley2• 6 years ago

A lot of people can’t help it, we beat them into the dirt and now they don’t have a choice. Also there’s the (probably correct) expectation that corporations and governments will abuse a lot of the emergency provisions and that feeds the rebellion. Also, it shouldn’t be surprising that young people react with apathy toward a large problem like this when older people have at best reacted towards their problems with apathy and at worst have blamed the younger people themselves.

I’m not saying these people are innocent but this isn’t one sided.

Nasrudith• 6 years ago

Anecdotally I have found it is the older half (latter middle age) that are less likely to take it seriously ironically and likely to complain about inconveniences or that they are "overreacting". I blame Fox News for it, they are outright the world's largest elder abuse network.

Personally I suspect the abysmal leadership and the utterly corrupt fuck ups in preparations who spent more time insider trading than stocking up on medical supplies back when there was fully functioning industrty undermines the legitimacy greatly. How can they ask others to take them seriously when they didn't? The tracking is just plain Reichstagging at this point.

And the worst part is that the threat is real and the leadership being corrupt morons doesn't change that.

erfgh• 6 years ago

What if going outside is explicitly allowed? Does your tirade makes sense then?

soraminazuki7• 6 years ago

I don’t blame governments. I blame all you idiots who won’t stop going outside.

It's precisely this kind of reasoning that this article is having problems with. Pre-COVID19, it was because of the terrorists, drug dealers, and pedophiles that we'd have to give up our freedoms. Now, it's because of "us idiots." We the people are "too idiotic" to decide for ourselves, or so you say.

FillardMillmore• 6 years ago

This is the crux of the issue. It's very easy for "emergency" powers leveraged by the government to become permanent powers. Look no further than the Patriot Act. The public should be following the public recommendations/guidelines as much as they possibly can, but they should also keep a close eye on the government and what powers it grants itself.

vsareto• 6 years ago

Unless you're an epidemiological or virology expert, you probably are too ignorant to make sound decisions to save lives and prevent damage on a state/national scale for COVID-19. That's not a knock against you, it's just that most of us don't know the details of the many fields of science that go into our daily lives. I have no idea when/if to do mass vehicle recalls in the automotive industry, where to deploy military units for maximum safety like a commanding officer, or how to navigate law with respect to police department enforcing the law in the legal system.

The key difference that didn't settle in with people quickly enough is that they could cause damage with little or no symptoms by just being near other people. Because of how this particular virus works, that meant changing behavior by the time it affected you directly was too late. Many field-ignorant people only change their behavior when it directly affects them.

VeninVidiaVicii2• 6 years ago

I know it's annecdotal, but now I've had two elderly relatives die -- one from covid-19, and one from a heart attack, in the past few weeks. The second wasn't able to get into the healthcare system because it is just too overstretched. Firstly, causes by a very slow ambulance, and got diverted to an ER just about as far away as you can get.

I have also seen more people walking along our city exercise path than ever before. There's not really a good middle ground here, exercising your civil liberties is resulting in deaths.

hurricanetc3• 6 years ago

The shelter in place orders started off completely voluntary. People ignored them. And it escalated. People continued to ignore and the policies continued to escalate. We didn’t go from zero to where we are now. People caused this.

coffeefirst• 6 years ago

Going outside is fine and recommended.

Compliance, at least here, has been petty good. Imperfect, sure, but everyone I see out walking is keeping a safe distance.

bilbo0s2• 6 years ago

True.

Exercise is good for your immune system. But I think the public health experts probably meant for us to exercise alone. You still see lots of groups of 4 or 5 or more people out there in my area. And based on what people are saying, this must happen in other areas as well. Or my favorite are the groups of bicyclists exercising and keeping 6 ft away from each other. Think about it, one cyclist towards the front of the pack coughs and what's gonna happen?

I don't think the government needs for us to stay at home per sé, but they do need for us to stay away from each other. Some cooperation on our part would go a long way towards helping. Having conceded that, not sure that tracking everyone is gonna stop the kinds of stupidity I was just outlining. You'll still see the groups out there walking or running up the street together or bicycling. I'm just not sure those guys get it? And the government tracking them probably won't make them get it.

programmarchy• 6 years ago

It’s not a simple request for people living paycheck to paycheck. We could’ve shut down international travel, implemented UBI or expanded Medicare instead of trillions in corporate bailouts. It’s laughable to blame idiot citizens for the scale of the devastation, but a convenient scapegoat to shift the focus away from the ones in power who could’ve made the most difference.

hurricanetc3• 6 years ago

Oh yes it’s all paycheck to paycheck people congregating in Central Park.

seeTheAstroturf5• 6 years ago

Medical spends literally billions of dollars to regulate out competition. Then they can't handle demand. Blame them and corrupt politicians.

Also pandemics mean either 70 percent of people will catch it, or we need a vaccine. Why even quarentine?

Flatten the curve so we can die on ventilators instead?

monadgonad• 6 years ago

Flatten the curve so that much fewer people will die until a vaccine can be developed.

saalweachter2• 6 years ago

The statistics I've seen floating around lately are that ~80% of people who go on the ventilators die.

But keep in mind that 20% of the people who go on the ventilators live. Flattening the curve means that, if you reach the point of requiring a ventilator -- and we haven't run out of ventilators -- your chance of survival goes from 0% to 20%. It's not 100% or even 50%, but it's a lot better than 0%.

SuoDuanDao3• 6 years ago

I'm not surprised you're being downvoted. Of all the institutions that are on shaky ground these days, the medical ones are the ones who should most consider an overhaul as a result of this fiasco. Unfortunately, they seem too concerned with protecting their monopoly to accept any criticism or suggestions.

appleshore• 6 years ago

You’re right, there are more people outside walking in areas than need to be. Walking in areas where there would be less people or none. People sitting on sidewalks, grass areas etc.

TV news says our city streets are empty — but there’s actually babies, old people, lots of people exercising etc etc everywhere. Farmers markets with huge crowds. Non-essential construction workers all over.

Yet there are a lot of people outside because they have no choice. They are working or surviving. And then yesterday at the grocery store, there are people working there without gloves and without masks. And they’re jovial, walking around carefree.

I seen people preparing food and drinks without gloves and touching lids etc.

I don’t think wealthy people walking around is particularly bad but I understand your sentiment. The worse problem is we just have stupid people everywhere and sadly many are in our government, agencies and so-called elite. And some are critical workers.

Bizarro• 6 years ago

You don't blame governments for anything. You think that government is the solution too all problems.

notyourday3• 6 years ago

It’s too bad that people can’t follow simple requests. Governments are forced to choose between allowing idiot citizens to destroy society or to implement draconian policies.

That was Bolshevick's motto.

The rest of us are being asked to just stay the fuck home for a few weeks.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-percent-of-americans-woul...

10M have not had a paycheck for 2 weeks.

lostmsu• 6 years ago

Do you think they will get paychecks if they go out?

badrabbit• 6 years ago

What if you don't have a home or your home is unsafe or abusive environment. Adversity is a given, rights are not for good and peaceful times only. FYI,the US is still under emergency from 9/11, patriot act is still a thing.

gameswithgo• 6 years ago

there is nothing wrong with going for a walk in a non dense area.

eeZah7Ux2• 6 years ago

How convenient.

sershe2• 6 years ago

This is a good example of why strong negative rights and freedoms are so important. We don't want, and I quote you, "idiots" dictating what others can and cannot do based mostly on their rightful indignation.

nimbius• 6 years ago

the source reporting the US surveillance is kinda murky at best. Apparently the US sources their information from ad trackers and a company called lotadata which has a "geospatial AI platform "

if most of the tracking data is coming from FAANG its nothing new, however, it may not exactly be accurate with the latest iphone and android devices which have fairly overt controls for the user to restrict data collection.

chatmasta• 6 years ago

I’m speculating here, but it’s probably a data broker that gets location data from apps that share it as part of an advertising SDK. Users still need to enable location sharing. So the data ends selects for a cohort of people that installs sketchy apps and grants location permission. Ironically, this is probably the group of people least likely to follow social distancing guidelines.

dkdk8283• 6 years ago

LocationSmart is one such broker. They’ve been featured here before.

soraminazuki7• 6 years ago

The fact that commercial companies are the ones conducting the actual work doesn't justify anything, though. The article also explicitly mentions that this has been going on before the outbreak:

The privacy-or-security discussion has been going on for years. With new digital technologies, it is one of the main ethical problems of human society. Still, the coronavirus can push people to solve the dilemma right about now.

jimktrains2• 6 years ago

At the ACLU, we have always recognized that, during a disease outbreak, individual rights must sometimes give way to the greater good. After all, when it comes to disease, we are not just individuals but also one big bio-mass. That is why people can sometimes be deprived of their liberty through quarantine, for example. And this is as it should be, provided — and this is a crucial and sometimes violated condition — that the science supports the effectiveness and proportionality of measures such as quarantine. And even if a quarantine is imposed, people do not lose their due process rights, which at a minimum require that they be able to challenge their quarantine.

- https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/can-we-trust-the...

notyourday3• 6 years ago

It is difficult to challenge the quarantine if the court functions are severely restricted.

malandrew3• 6 years ago

This is a super valid observation that deserves more attention.

mrfusion2• 6 years ago

They have a point but I expected them to be doing more at this time. I guess they’d just lose a lot of supporters.

From what I’ve read or related Supreme Court cases the quarantined need a definite end date which a lot of these don’t have.

throwaway0a5e2• 6 years ago

Unfortunately the ACLU is slowly going down the path that SPLC and NRA (to pick one example from both sides of the isle) went down. They used to be a strong special interest advocate organization but they're becoming more and more corrupted by partisan politics.

Likewise a statement of "we know it's not what our organization stands for but y'all need to get on board with what the government is telling you to do" is kind of to be expected. If they really wanted to stay true to their mission they would have either come down on the side of being pro-liberty or they would have said nothing at all.

malandrew3• 6 years ago

WHO and the CDC also count as organizations that were more ideologically neutral that have lost their neutrality over time.

My understanding is that it was the CDC's partisan scope creep that put it in the crosshairs when the new administration came in. Instead of sticking strictly to infectious bacteria and viruses, they started quixotic quests to classify gun violence and obesity as epidemics. Those distractions allegedly cost them their edge in this pandemic.

sershe2• 6 years ago

Based solely on their own emails and mailings, ACLU these days is a pale shadow of its former self. They have successfully convinced me to cancel my membership... instead of being about civil liberties, these days it's just another generic left-leaning group (no judgment on whether generic left leaning groups are good or bad).

This just shows that I was right. They used to sue to protect the civil liberties of nazies for gods sake, and now they can't even take an unequivocal position on this simple (civil rights wise) issue because they have to toe the line. The lockdown, regardless of its merits, has more than enough cheerleaders already. We need someone to also focus on civil liberties, not what might be "necessary".

chrisco255• 6 years ago

Giving up your liberties here will likely be a permanent choice. Live free or die.

sova• 6 years ago

Wish we could shout "Let freedom ring!" and hit the liberty bell with a mallet, but because of the crack it would likely make a humorous "tink."

seeTheAstroturf5• 6 years ago

Death rates are at 0.5%, and it was worth shutting down the economy.

Car accident death rates are at 1%. Wait until people hear about that.

The bigger shock is when people realize that you can't stop the spread of a pandemic. You can flatten the curve to help hospitals. But soon we will find hospitals are more dangerous than staying at home due to infections and that respirators barely improve your chance of survival.

I hope medical loses their credibility big time. Their rejection of math and science in favor of tradition is horrifying.

simion3146• 6 years ago

So you assume that yourself are the number guy and know better, so what is the equation that will determine when lockdown is more efficient? what are the inputs in that equation ? Why car deaths would be a factor in why you should implement a lockdown. If you go to a hospital with a illness X would you like a response like "X kills less then cars in our country, until traffic laws are fixed we decided you can suffer and die from X, Have a ice death!"

ozim4• 6 years ago

He is not even that good as a number guy...

Current global stats as I write are: 1446242 confirmed, 83424 deaths which in my calculator is giving 5% not 0,5%

seeTheAstroturf5• 6 years ago

I think it's fair to do death vs death. Especially if Corona disproportionately affects people who have lived 60+ years already. Car deaths affect people of all ages.

The economic collapse and scare has caused people to cancel or delay surgeries, dental work, physical therapy, buy newer and safer cars, home abuse has gone up, I imagine exercise has gone down, I wonder how alcohol use has changed.

You can quantify these with numbers.

wila• 6 years ago

Chances of getting a car accident this year do not equal the chances of getting the virus within the same year.

Aka comparing the two makes no sense.

According to [1] in 2018 there was about 11 deaths per 100,000. So that's 0.011% instead of 1%.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

cobookman• 6 years ago

The article claims China is a role model.

However chinas reported numbers is not their actual numbers. We have no clue if China’s approach was effective.

Even today ppl in China are still getting sick. With weekend traffic in Beijing not recovered.

zabana2• 6 years ago

I may have misinterpreted the author's intentions, but I think it was sarcasm.

dekervin• 6 years ago

I am surprised there hasn't be a bigger spotlight shed on the concepts developped by Michel Foucault around Biopower [0] and the genesis of the modern state. See for example this excerpt of Discipline and punish [1] on what quarantine was like:

"First, a strict spatial partitioning: the closing of the town and its outlying districts, a prohibition to leave the town on pain of death, the killing of all stray animals; the division of the town into distinct quarters, each governed by an intendant. Each street is placed under the authority of a syndic, who keeps it under surveillance; if he leaves the street, he will be condemned to death."

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower

[1]https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish...

mrfusion2• 6 years ago

It’s really hard to get any rights back once the government has taken them.

kyuudou3• 6 years ago

Dr. Michael J. Burry, M.D. (Vanderbilt), setup a twitter account[1] just to address some of the negative consequences of overreacting to covid-19. He's not normally a social media type, to say the least.

[1]https://twitter.com/michaeljburry

altcognito3• 6 years ago

Yeah he’s pitching that California has already reached herd immunity.

The premise is that covid-19 arrived in fall and that unlike everywhere else in the world, it arrived, spread without so much as being noticed at the ER.

__s2• 6 years ago

To clarify why that's a crazy premise: Italy

malandrew3• 6 years ago

If this actually happened, why did we not observe other incidents like what happened in the Live Care Center in Kirkland, Washington? 35 people died.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/coronavirus-nursing-ho...

This has ripped through like wildfire in highly vulnerable communities.

Also, would we not have observed a lot of medical staff becoming sick like they are now?

I just find it very hard to believe that this could have happened earlier without anyone noticing it given how it's greatly impacted pockets in very newsworthy ways.

Another example was that family in New Jersey where some members of the family died within hours of one another. 7 sick, 4 died.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/new-jersey-famil...

Even California has vulnerable pockets in places that would have been canaries in the coal mine.

Mc_Big_G2• 6 years ago

This is because he can't accept the face that CA implemented SIP before everyone else and what that implies about the administration's failure to recommend it. His politics are clearly driving his assertions.

jhanschoo• 6 years ago

When on the other hand I hear of states arguing over masks and ventilators, and of NY being over capacity, I can't empathize with his current advocacy for an immediate loosening of stay-at-home orders (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-07/michael-b...), as well as sentiments like this https://twitter.com/michaeljburry/status/1247338200269389824

Domestic violence "flourishing." This happening right now. Infuriating that governments sacrificed these women and children with blockhead policies lacking all nuance and understanding. Politicians and media ran roughshod over these victims. #COVID19

It's ironic that in the same tweet that he criticizes governments for lacking all nuance, he fails to note that the two anecdotes reported in the story come from China and Spain, which are among the hardest hit, which are likely the most justified for harsh measures and lockdowns.

He does point out many severe negative consequences, but they seem to be based off wrong assumptions. There is no universal testing because there are not enough tests.

There is no recommendation for the seemingly promising drugs because afaict there is not enough to meet demand. I don't see why "But there is no time for that." If there isn't enough of it anyway.

The situation may change but his current unnuanced criticism that doesn't seem to address aspects of his recommendation that seem to me need to be addressed does not convince me.

Mc_Big_G2• 6 years ago

We really need to stop putting so much faith in someone's opinion because they have "Dr." in front of their name. It turns out "smart" people can be incredibly stupid and/or mislead by their own prejudices and political leanings.

throwaway0a5e2• 6 years ago

It turns out "smart" people can be incredibly stupid and/or mislead by their own prejudices and political leanings.

If I had a nickle for every time I read "senior software engineer at X" in a profile that was spewing ideological drivel I wouldn't need to work for a living.

cameldrv3• 6 years ago

The thing is, yes, he's an MD, but his job is an investor. I don't know what his book looks like, but many funds carry leverage. It's possible that having the lockdown continue wipes out his considerable fortune.

Under these circumstances, even very intelligent people can fall prey to seemingly nonsensical motivated reasoning.

m3chars2• 6 years ago

In pop culture people turn into zombies by contact with a virus. Zombies don't think of themselves as idiots, probably because they lost their brains in the process, so actually they don't think at all, they just mumble "ARRRRHHHHG" "ORRRRRSSSSFFFF" and go after other peoples brains. Now this is a sad comment, using the deaths of other people to make a point, but since we're talking about facts I'll go ahead.

-- https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deat...

(14794 >= 60 years old, 12973 >= 70 years old, 775 < 60 years old) These are the statistics of the death toll in Italy, keep in mind the average life expectancy is 83 years in Italy. If it follows the same pattern as everywhere else, most of these cases will probably have co-morbidities as well.

-- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/04/07/new-yo...

quoting:

"ALBANY, N.Y. – The majority of New York’s more than 4,700 deaths due to coronavirus were among men, and 86% of all deaths were among people who had underlying illnesses, such as hypertension and diabetes, new state data shows.

The statistics released late Monday offered the latest glimpse into how the rapidly spreading virus has impacted New York and made it the epicenter for COVID-19 in the nation.

Of the 4,758 deaths in New York since the first on March 14, 61% were men and 39% were women, the state Department of Health reportedon its new data portal.

In addition, 63% of the deaths were among those age 70 and older, while 7% of the cases were those 49 and younger.

And 4,089 of those who died had at least one other chronic disease, the records showed:"

93% >= 50 years old. 63% >= 70 years old. Of all cases, 86% with underlying conditions that are known to reduce life expectancy aggressively. The average life expectancy in NY is 81years old.

-- From https://www.france24.com/en/20200402-for-some-survivors-coro... quote: "As the number of worldwide confirmed coronavirus cases climbs towards 1 million, the number of recoveries is thankfully more than four times the death toll. But medical experts told FRANCE 24 that COVID-19 can cause severe long-term damage to the lungs, heart, brain and other organs – and that for some patients, these complications may be permanent." in an article by Tom Wheeldon, that appeared on www.france24.com, 02/04/2020 - 15:28

Now, given the disease is a couple of months old, how can medical experts come to these conclusions? You would need years of follow-up of recovered patients to even be able to test the hypothesis. Given what we know about lung damage, e.g. from tabaco, and the way our bodies regenerate it's highly improbable that this has any kind of truth to it. It does, nonetheless, increase one thing, fear. Still, this is touted on every major news outlet, by so called experts.

-- Regarding the cases that appear on headlines and such, you can see things such as 80 years olds with cancer, dying, in a country where the life expectancy is 81 years, and still the cause being attributed to covid. It's like saying that an HIV patient died from a cold.

Going out and catching sun is actually good for you, there's a reason why flu and colds peak from late autumn to early spring. It doesn't take an expert to understand why. Plus, there are countries that seem to have been able to contain the epidemic wave without martial law, so it's certainly not the only viable option - and the question here is, "does this justify what is being done?" - not "should we ignore those that need medical treatment?".

Lastly, although the following quote was said in a very different context, it doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't apply (even if it was a quote by me): "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

tenebrisalietum• 6 years ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

We know the quote already. It's not doing any good to post it or repeat it. Simply saying this in response to complex problems is equivalent to saying "Thoughts and prayers" when someone is asking for help. It doesn't help and only makes you feel good.

People are willing to give up a lot for convenience, including sending many jobs to China. We allow this due to laissez-faire capitalism. Turns out people care more about cheap shit than the job prospects of their children.

People are also trained/willing to give up a lot for fear. This is caused in part by the very freedoms enshrined by your quote - there's a lot of fear and misinformation spread and allowed to spread because of the principle of free speech.

The situation is more complex and needs a more complex response than simply saying "hurr durr liberty".

m3chars2• 6 years ago

While what you say might be true, you took literally the last two lines of a much longer post (that were used as final note regarding the topic in question) and in turn used that to say nothing relevant either, "hurr durr complex capitalism let-do scoobydoobydoo", but of course making me say "hurr durr liberty" in the process.

The points I made are quite clear:

a) A serious reading of the data we know shows a different picture of the fear inducing narrative being peddled b) Experts say the most irresponsible things - in quite enigmatic situations for someone with deep expertise in the subject being talked about c) Lockdown and home isolation are probably detrimental in terms of an individuals immune system - as in, going out is good d) There are other approaches that seem to have worked quite well e) You're going to die f) You shouldn't trade certain things for a fake sense of security even in the face of uncertainty

There are other questions that are complex, like millions dying of structural inequality every year and no world wide response to that (and on that point, no moral outrage by the civic chevaliers on that either), we could go on in false moralities all night long.

Although I'm not religious, I imagine saying "Thoughts and prayers" does help people who are in distress.

RandyRanderson2• 6 years ago

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

[0] https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rahm_emanuel_409199

RandyRanderson2• 6 years ago

Provenance: https://freakonomics.com/2009/08/13/quotes-uncovered-who-sai...

ngcc_hk• 6 years ago

You start a war to get more power. You start letting virus to go and start ...

summerlight• 6 years ago

I'm seeing strong tensions between values considered to be fundamental; privacy, safety, freedom, etc. To me, it looks like COVID-19 has introduced a kind of CAP theorem for civil rights and we don't really have a good answer here.

Let's assume an ideal case of a perfect government with a good will. If a centralized authority have the perfect information and perfectly execute a quarantine measure, it will be so accurate that minimizes fatality and restrictions on freedom, but at the cost of extreme privacy invasion. If the government have less than perfect information or execution, you gotta choose either accuracy or recall for infected. The former will give you more freedom of action at a higher cost of life. The latter will restrict more freedom of action which also potentially leads to larger economical disasters, but will save more lives.

Even worse, this is not even a ternary choice but more of continuous, multi-dimensional one. Also, the good-will assumption made above distorts the reality in a very incorrect way. The solution space is likely much more complex (e.g. those values are not really mutually exclusive and interact each other in a subtle way) and we don't really understand what shape it is. Neither I know the right answer. But I can say that even values/rights that we assumed fundamental may conflict in the extreme situation like COVID-19 and we don't really understand what trade-offs we're forced to make and its consequences.

Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

Related Stories