Contact apps won't end lockdown. But they might kill off democracy

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/25/contact-apps-wont-end-lockdown-but-they-might-kill-off-democracy

by pseudolus • 6 years ago

107 51 6 years ago

eli5• 6 years ago

Seems like a classic in the “the idea doesn’t 100% perfectly solve the problem so somehow it’s worse than doing nothing” genre.

I do not follow the leap from mild criticism of the approach (not everyone has a smartphone) to the hyperbolic “end of democracy.”

dleslie6• 6 years ago

Such a system is just a single subpoena or a single piece of child-saving legislation away from being used by law enforcement.

I pity the poor sod who is incarcerated because they happened to innocently walk past the scene of a crime, and roughly fit the description of the alleged perpetrator.

eli5• 6 years ago

It isn’t. No more so than Apple/Google can be ordered to install something on your phone already. I encourage you to read about the protocol being used. It’s not perfect, but they put a lot of effort into protecting privacy.

The police already can (and do!) demand cell location data from carriers to investigate crimes. Ad companies collect data from apps you use to build targeting profiles.

This proposal is far more respectful of your privacy than any of that, and in the service of saving lives.

lonelappde4• 6 years ago

The UK and French government proposals for contact tracing violate GACT privacy design.

dleslie6• 6 years ago

The police already can (and do!) demand cell location data from carriers to investigate crimes. Ad companies collect data from apps you use to build targeting profiles.

Engaging in an act doesn't make it ethical to do.

No more so than Apple/Google can be ordered to install something on your phone already.

That depends on your country of origin.

unishark• 6 years ago

Ad companies collect data from apps you use to build targeting profiles.

More like a scary harbinger of what the govt could get away with rather than a counter.

The extent to which browsers and phones monitor people beyond what they intentionally share has never stopped seeming crazy to me, especially given how widely accepted it is.

jariel5• 6 years ago

"I pity the poor sod who is incarcerated"

There are literally billions of people on the planet right now incarcerated in their homes.

The economy is a patient whose heart has stopped pumping - we've injected Trillions in liquidity to hold off 'total death' and even that aid will only hold out for several more weeks. The 'system is collapsing' very, very quickly. The numbers are off the charts like anything we've seen before, all the buzzers in the cockpit are going off at once.

'Contact Tracing' more like chemotherapy, until there's a cure or vaccine, the South Korean model is basically the only example we can expect to try to follow.

Edit: I should add, I don't care about 'the economy' as an arbitrary thing, I don't care about investors or 'the stock market'. But 'the economy' is made up of very real things, like your job, whatever you do - and it's all going down like dominos. The headlines talking abut x% reduction in GDP etc, - those are the 'don't panic it will be ok numbers'. When >80% of the population is staying at home, the system as a whole cannot move forward - it's an 'existential decline' just 'some lower amount of GDP'. It's going to be cataclysmic and will be very, very difficult for the community at large, life-threatening in many circumstances.

The population at large I think has a visceral sensitivity to 'pandemic' - we've all seen the film, we know what 'getting Covid' means to us. But the notion of the economy going down like a house of cards is more intangible to most people, so it's less of a populist issue, but it should be.

Korean style contact-tracing looks different in that light.

paulryanrogers3• 6 years ago

How much of the economy is truly essential to living? Tourism is great but I can live without the old way of doing it. Widget production and selling has diminishing returns, even for pleasure.

Perhaps a social-distancing-world is incompatible with consumerist capitalism. Yet I hope for all the suffering from the virus and lockdowns we'll at least gain a new perspective on life and work.

Edit: forgot 'world'

dleslie6• 6 years ago

Incarceration is knowing you cannot move two steps to the left without being severely punished.

Social distancing is an inconvenience; it is not incarceration.

papeda• 6 years ago

This piece seems pretty short on details for such a strong claim. As far as I can tell, all concrete objections appear in this bit of text

Who tells your phone that you’ve been diagnosed, for example? Given the possibility that – in a post-lockdown scenario – individuals with Covid-19 might be subjected to stigma, harassment or dismissal, they might be understandably reluctant to broadcast the fact. Then there’s the problem that not everyone has a smartphone, even though it’s commonly supposed in tech circles that they do. The pandemic has revealed that a significant minority of the population (mostly older people) still relies on olde-worlde feature phones. Moreover, it turns out that not all smartphones are created equal: one estimate is that 50% of all smartphones can’t use the proximity-sensing systems being developed by Apple and Google.

...which is followed by a hand-wavey "I could go on but you get the point".

All three complaints are about how effective the solution might be, not actual reasons why it would "kill democracy".

dchyrdvh• 6 years ago

They are right, though. It's not about the app, it's about normalizing global survelliance: once the populace is convinced enough, it'll be sealed by laws and enforcement. The whole idea is clearly insripired by the Chinese WeChat app.

slg• 6 years ago

That is one hyperbolic headline. I can understand having privacy concerns with the software, but the idea that this will "kill off democracy" is quite the extreme claim that the author puts zero effort into actually trying to defend. This is an important subject to debate, but I don't think this article really adds anything to that discussion.

tialaramex• 6 years ago

A nice headline that as usual doesn't reflect the article's content.

The temptation for a democratic government to expand its powers without an effective sunset (cf. Patriot Act) is a nice headline but is also trivially obviated. Since the UK's parliament has currently decided not to hold Divisions (voting) it can only pass legislation that has broad consensus - basically the Speaker or their deputy will ask a question, and if they hear any dissent that means division, they're not holding any Divisions so the motion fails. You might push through some open-ended nonsense with a straight party line vote but that requires a Division. Unless you believe somehow Westminster now lacks even one single decent person to say "No" a sunset clause seems inevitable in any such legislation.

But there are legitimate obstacles far more interesting which the article brings up. What proportion of the UK's population even own a device capable of being deployed this way? If it's 80% of those who actually can go somewhere (it arguably doesn't matter that 95-year old Nana Smith doesn't own a phone when she hasn't left her nursing home since the London Olympics) then you might be on to a winner, if it's 40% that's unworkable.

And there are logistical problems, both in deploying the associated testing and treatment strategy (e.g. where do we put quarantined people? If we send them home that's not very effective especially if other members of the household aren't tested positive) and deploying a hypothetical contact tracing app to millions of citizens.

But one thing test + trace has going for it, which the article hints at, is that we already know it works. The virus is not a mysterious "invisible enemy" it's just a virus, if we can identify everyone (or more realistically almost everyone) who is infected quickly and quarantine them in an effective way we can literally get rid of it.

Guinea Worm is a surprisingly relevant example here. Guinea Worm is literally a worm that can grow inside humans, and so of course we can't give people a vaccine against it, any more than we can vaccinate you against shark bites or being mauled by a bear. And weirdly although it is a worm, the medications known to be effective in killing worms in humans don't work. So eradicating Guinea Worm is mostly about stopping the worm's lifecycle, giving people safe drinking water, keeping people with worms out of the water, that sort of thing. And it works. Chances are no HN readers live anywhere with endemic Guinea Worm, even though we've nothing really resembling a "treatment" for it.

Maybe we will get a vaccine that works. Or a miracle drug which makes it low risk to have COVID-19 in a developed country where they can just have the right drugs at the pharmacy to fix it. But maybe not. Test & trace works even if not.

SpicyLemonZest• 6 years ago

Across the pond, we have many permanent laws which in principle have sunset clauses. It's an easy trick; you just have to be using the temporary powers to do something important at the time of the sunset. Most people will say "well, that does sound important, so let's give it another 5 years".

StanislavPetrov• 6 years ago

Every time I think there isn't another good reason to keep my dumb flip phone instead of getting on the smartphone bandwagon they come up with one.

glofish• 6 years ago

ha, as if that matters. if a law like this passes you will be mandated to carry one with tracking enabled. The gov may even pay for a low end model like that.

I would never voluntarily run an app like this nor would I consent

aspenmayer• 6 years ago

Mandatory lockdown for exposure to one virus can be a slippery slope. It’s not legal to discriminate against someone for a health condition or disability. If you can’t exercise your freedom of travel are you being discriminated against? Or is that acceptable due to the potential impact to the economy via the Commerce Clause? Either way, this is some new territory.

Retric2• 6 years ago

Quarantines have a very long history.

For relent history 1918: https://history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-citie...

- Citizens caught in public without a mask or wearing it improperly were arrested, charged with “disturbing the peace” and fined $5.

- In his book, Jacobs says that the gauze masks city officials claimed were “99 percent proof against influenza” were in reality hardly effective at all. San Francisco’s relatively low infection rates in October were probably due to well-organized campaigns to quarantine all naval installations before the flu arrived, plus early efforts to close schools, ban social gatherings and close all places of “public amusement.”

- On November 21, a whistle blast signaled that San Franciscans could finally take off their masks and the San Francisco Chronicle described “sidewalks and runnels… strewn with the relics of a tortuous month.”

... Believing masks were what saved them the first time, businesses and theater owners fought back against public gathering orders. As a result, San Francisco ended up suffering some of the highest death rates from Spanish flu nationwide. The 2007 analysis found that if San Francisco had kept all of its anti-flu protections in place through the spring of 1919, it could have reduced deaths by 90 percent.

As to discrimination based on heath issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

dehrmann• 6 years ago

Worth noting the Spanish Flu was ~10x more fatal than COVID-19.

lonelappde4• 6 years ago

The US Constitution has always been treated as having a huge asterisk of the form "X is required/banned unless there is a really good reason", even by original signatories, because humans matter more than paper. Now, what's considered "a good reason" is the heart of politics.

koenigdavidmj• 6 years ago

It’s only certain rights we treat like that—nobody is yet bold enough to suggest suspending double jeopardy because we have really good evidence the second time.

em-bee• 6 years ago

the economy is not the victim here. the question is, is your freedom to travel more important than my right to stay healthy?

if we want to keep travelling then we must explore ways to travel that don't endanger others. this will have a huge effect on public transport. but it is imaginable. ironically (for someone who doesn't like cars) this also means that car travel should increase as well.

and suddenly suburban sprawl looks like a good idea too.

cassalian2• 6 years ago

if we want to keep travelling then we must explore ways to travel that don't endanger others.

Last time I checked, traveling by car very often endagers others, and far more than flying, even when considering covid.

https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/

Approximately 1.35 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,700 people lose their lives every day on the roads.
An additional 20-50 million suffer non-fatal injuries, often resulting in long-term disabilities.
More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among vulnerable road users—pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.
Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death among young people aged 5-29. Young adults aged 15-44 account for more than half of all road deaths.
Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad

odshoifsdhfs• 6 years ago

I see this topic come up but I don't know the answer, but let me put it another way. I will change go out with travel, but I think it also applies.

If you never leave your house, you will never get covid (give or take, lets assume). If I am sick, and I never leave the house, no-one will ever get sick from me.

But why is your(others) right to go out more important than mine? People that don't want to get the virus can stay home as much as the sick person no? If people are so scared of people on the street having the virus, they can just stay home and protect themselves

And on the other extreme, and this is what I hear a lot, it comes from people that have 'good' homes. A room for everyone where they can be alone, a warm house, wifi and facebook/IG/Steam and are either working from home or getting some benefits for staying home (not all countries are giving checks to everyone, and some people really are screwed). Now if you compare this to the other side (and not even extreme a lot of people live like this) where there is one room for 3 kids, no wifi, 4 tv channels and a moldy old house that is freezing. It seems to me it is easy to say 'stay at home' when we live like 'kings' and don't think if that person doesn't go to work cleaning some stairs or whatnot, they will have no food at the end of the month.

You can apply this to travel I think, by saying some people really need to travel for work (wether airport or a subway), so why is non-covid people more important that covid-positive people?

3fe9a03ccd14ca52• 6 years ago

I’ve been really sad lately, see just how quickly we’re trading our liberty as a society for the semblance of security.

Privacy invasive tracking, governors enacting law by decree, closing beaches, moms arrested in parks and people responding with “good”. Makes me sad. The virus came and gave our leaders all the excuses they needed.

lonelappde4• 6 years ago

A modern spin on the old saying: Your freedom to cough ends at my nose.

3fe9a03ccd14ca52• 6 years ago

It’s quite amazing we ever tolerated each other driving cars.

pgsbathhouse2• 6 years ago

see just how quickly we’re trading our liberty as a society for the semblance of security.

Are you referencing the Benjamin Franklin quote here? Because the quote means the exact opposite of what it is typically used for.

The state has every right and responsibility to defend the general populace against threats in spite of personal wants and wishes.

DennisP3• 6 years ago

Given the possibility that...individuals with Covid-19 might be subjected to stigma, harassment or dismissal, they might be understandably reluctant to broadcast the fact.

Then it's good that in the Apple/Google proposal, that information isn't broadcast. The bluetooth transmits random numbers. Your phone stores the numbers it has sent and received. Upon positive test, the numbers are published and all the phones compare them to the numbers they've received; people who detect a match have an incentive to get tested, so there's no need for a central authority to know who the contacts were.

I don't see how this adds much to government surveillance capabilities. Certainly not in the U.S. where detailed location histories are available for purchase. (In fact, a case in 2018 put specific constitutional limits on the government's right to purchase that data, after the government used it to track down illegal immigrants.)

Given the vast number of surveillance cameras I saw last time in London, I doubt this would add significantly to their capabilities either.

AstralStorm• 6 years ago

You're underestimating the value of essentially real time tracking metadata with high precision, which is not commonly available nor sold. (Unless, say, you give it to Google outright for example, which is frighteningly easy to do.)

And vastly overestimating the quality of the surveillance cameras.

Ultimately, the big pushback has to be against normalization of use of special measures that are devised for special circumstances in general cases.

DennisP3• 6 years ago

What real time tracking metadata? In the contact tracing system there's no real time tracking at all.

All the server gets is a set of random numbers from a user, after that user tests positive. And while it might be difficult to keep the server from knowing which user tested positive, it's not even necessary to store that.

multjoy• 6 years ago

Given the vast number of surveillance cameras I saw last time in London, I doubt this would add significantly to their capabilities either.

The majority of CCTV is privately owned. The vast majority of CCTV is not proactively monitored. Tracking someone using London CCTV is someone staring at a screen for a number of hours trying to follow them on playback.

I’ve had the joy of recreating someone’s movements in a nightclub from CCTV. A 6 hour night out took me days to reconstruct, and that’s using a small number of cameras in a well defined area.

CCTV as a mass surveillance tool just doesn’t work.

omnimus• 6 years ago

It would work if it was centrally owned and with camera on every corner.

I agree that privately owned cameras are fine. But we have to be very careful what we allow in future.

cmendel• 6 years ago

Tracking someone using London CCTV is someone staring at a screen for a number of hours trying to follow them on playback.

It is until it isn't. Soon it will be a ML system and it will be possible, then what?

alephnan• 6 years ago

Taiwan’s pretty democratic.

Contact apps won't end lockdown. But they might kill off democracy

Related Stories