The case for a mandatory tracking app

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeah sure, that would be wonderful but its not happening. The hand does not cut off its own head.

Ironically it invariably does exactly that except we find out too late, after the fact and in the midst of the consequences once the opportunity to effectively mitigate them has passed.

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Because their chivattos have everything locked down? So that even moderate dissent could be easily quashed before it is even heard.

Quashed how ?  What's the scenario here ?

1. A group wants to protest the virus lockdown (I presume this is the kind of protest you are talking about, as nothing else makes sense to me such as protesting taxes etc.)
2. There's some kind of posting sharing notices of the protest
3. The police use this tracking app (somehow ?) to ....

Finish it off for me.  

I do see civil liberties at risk with security tracking however we have already had incursions against our rights post-911, with regards to additional powers of search & seizure via internet monitoring.  Has it made us more safe ?  Well, we haven't had large terrorist attacks, but maybe that's not proof that the additional search powers are to credit.  Have we had abuses ?  It's hard to see how.

But I am more interested in the risks you see.  I'm not saying there aren't any, as I definitely think there are.  But ... what are they ?

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, Rue said:

1. Someone get back to me with an early detection and tracking plan that does not compromise privacy and fundamental freedoms please.

2. I think we do a good job with sexually transmitted diseases,

3. ...aids,  breast, colon and prostate cancer early detection testing and tracking.   No apps used there.

4. I know Israel, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea use apps to track disease but their people have different histories and cultural values that cause them to have had to live with a constant threat to their existence .

 

1. How about this: every policy has a trade off, ie. winners and losers.  Freedoms and security often are in tension so we, as a society, make a choice.  I would be far more interested in how we can create PUBLICS that can talk about such things intelligently without excluding anyone from the debate.  The better the debate, the more likely the policy will represent the best-of-breed solution to our problems.  You want an example of an early detection and tracking plan that doesn't compromise privacy and freedoms at all ?  Well there isn't one, at least as far as I can tell.  But the question is of balance.  "I'm not free to indulge my passion for collecting live hand grenades anymore thanks to Trudeau's freedom-hating government".  
2. Speak for yourself...
3. Apples-to-oranges comparison.  The precautionary measure of an app doesn't help control those any more than my habit wearing of several condoms at all times stops Covid.
4. There you go - trade-offs happen amongst peoples, in cultures.  We don't ask Tie Domi to sing, nor Babs Streisand to get in a hockey fight - although an evening that featured both would be a worthwhile spectacle.  We can't ask China to be an entrepreneurial hotbed, or the US to be a mollified and compliant populace.  Do the most with what you have got.  For Canada, this means - or SHOULD mean - pragmatism, community-mindedness, and empathy.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But I am more interested in the risks you see.  I'm not saying there aren't any, as I definitely think there are.  But ... what are they ?

I've alluded to it well enough to be understood. I do not trust the government with that level of oversight, any government. It is police state. There must be ways to do it that ensure privacy is protected. So that moderate anti-state criminality can still occur

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. I've alluded to it well enough to be understood.
2. I do not trust the government with that level of oversight, any government. It is police state. There must be ways to do it that ensure privacy is protected. So that moderate anti-state criminality can still occur

1. Ok well I am saying I don't understand them.  Can you give a real world example of how they would manifest ?
2. Maybe relate it to my 9-11 example and play it back from that perspective ?  We gave up rights then, for security reasons.  Is this similar ?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I've alluded to it well enough to be understood. I do not trust the government with that level of oversight, any government. It is police state. There must be ways to do it that ensure privacy is protected. So that moderate anti-state criminality can still occur

But they have that level of oversight NOW if they want. All they have to do is access google and your ISP. And no, it's not a police state.

[New World Disorder]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

But they have that level of oversight NOW if they want. All they have to do is access google and your ISP. And no, it's not a police state.

Would you recognize a police state even if you were conditioned to accept one?

[Argus]

21 minutes ago, New World Disorder said:

Would you recognize a police state even if you were conditioned to accept one?

Do you even know what a police state is?

How many political prisoners do you believe there are in Canada?

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

The important thing about the vaccine is that since Democrats caused this disaster by pushing impeachment, Republicans should be given absolute priority for the Covid 19 vaccine.

 

This means that no Democrat should be vaccinated until all the Republicans and their families have been.

[dialamah]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

How many political prisoners do you believe there are in Canada?

All of us, apparently.  Under house arrest but still ...

[Guest ProudConservative]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The important thing about the vaccine is that since Democrats caused this disaster by pushing impeachment, Republicans should be given absolute priority for the Covid 19 vaccine.

 

This means that no Democrat should be vaccinated until all the Republicans and their families have been.

Here's an idea. You get to control what goes into your body.

[Rue]

On 5/14/2020 at 6:03 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Quashed how ?  What's the scenario here ?

1. A group wants to protest the virus lockdown (I presume this is the kind of protest you are talking about, as nothing else makes sense to me such as protesting taxes etc.)
2. There's some kind of posting sharing notices of the protest
3. The police use this tracking app (somehow ?) to ....

Finish it off for me.  

I do see civil liberties at risk with security tracking however we have already had incursions against our rights post-911, with regards to additional powers of search & seizure via internet monitoring.  Has it made us more safe ?  Well, we haven't had large terrorist attacks, but maybe that's not proof that the additional search powers are to credit.  Have we had abuses ?  It's hard to see how.

But I am more interested in the risks you see.  I'm not saying there aren't any, as I definitely think there are.  But ... what are they ?

Start with this..there is no such thing as a secure firewall. Then move to this second concept, there is no such thing as power that remains uncorrupted but there is always power that claims to be well intended.

Try work with those two. Kids taught me the first. Travelling in and living in conflict zones and listening to war vets and survivors taught me the second...certainly to never take freedom for granted.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

Here's an idea. You get to control what goes into your body.

Only if you are Republican though.  The Democrats should be punished, and perhaps tracked.  Amiright ? 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

1. Start with this..there is no such thing as a secure firewall.
2. Then move to this second concept, there is no such thing as power that remains uncorrupted but there is always power that claims to be well intended.

 

1. Ok, but... I don't think this is a matter of firewalls.  You would need access to the technology which is in-house for phone companies right ?  It's like saying that hackers could get through a firewall to listen to land line calls.  I suppose they could but I believe they would have to do a whole lot more as well.  But ok, you are more concerned that the information might fall into the wrong hands somehow and ... let's say nefarious forces could track the entire Canadian population.
2. So the idea is don't give goverment any additional powers, even if it might be necessary ?

Again - play this back against the security changes after 9/11.  We protested and debated those changes - what came of that ?

[Guest ProudConservative]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Only if you are Republican though.  The Democrats should be punished, and perhaps tracked.  Amiright ? 

I hate the Republicans.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, ProudConservative said:

I hate the Republicans.

The worst thing about Republicans is they give conservatives a bad name by pretending to be conservative.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Argus

[Rue]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, but... I don't think this is a matter of firewalls.  You would need access to the technology which is in-house for phone companies right ?  It's like saying that hackers could get through a firewall to listen to land line calls.  I suppose they could but I believe they would have to do a whole lot more as well.  But ok, you are more concerned that the information might fall into the wrong hands somehow and ... let's say nefarious forces could track the entire Canadian population.
2. So the idea is don't give goverment any additional powers, even if it might be necessary ?

Again - play this back against the security changes after 9/11.  We protested and debated those changes - what came of that ?

Your last question is murky. Are you saying we should not question government because we are already captive? 

I  regards to the hacking questions, I defer to hackers. They can hack anything anywhere. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Rue said:

Your last question is murky. Are you saying we should not question government because we are already captive? 

No, we should weigh the costs and benefits.  Play back 9/11 and let us see how that works out.

[Rue]

PC and Argus, sounds like you use the term Republican to assume a  lot of people  share the exact same ideas. That is no different than smearing all Democrats the same way. The name of a political party and party politics may label people for the sake of controlling debate and voting results but the fact is no one even knows what either party stands for. Like Liberal or Conservative they are  just names to indicate the patronage network you want to join.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, we should weigh the costs and benefits.  Play back 9/11 and let us see how that works out.

Me no kapiche that last comment.

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, Rue said:

Me no kapiche that last comment.

Well after 9/11 we had a great amount of debate about losing civil liberties in exchange for security.  Seeing as we don't talk about that anymore, we appear to have processed the change politically.  So any discussion we have on the same topic should have our previous discussion, the process and conclusions, as a starting point.

[Rue]

With respect, I would contend that just because you might believe the motives of a government restricting  our movement is justified because of   Covid 19 does not make the edict to order us home apolitical.

Anything a  government implements or imposes on us by the inherent nature of that implementation or imposition makes it political not its intent. 

Further I would argue we are all at a certain level political prisoners of Covid 19 in that we were told to stay home and not work. The quarantine is house arrest and restricts our freedoms and livelihood.

I would argue imprisonment can be any government decree which forces us to stay in a specific place and prohibits us from working and living an open and free life.

The intent or motives of the government does not make us less imprisoned the physical restrictions do.

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well after 9/11 we had a great amount of debate about losing civil liberties in exchange for security.  Seeing as we don't talk about that anymore, we appear to have processed the change politically.  So any discussion we have on the same topic should have our previous discussion, the process and conclusions, as a starting point.

That is a big subjective  assumption that people after 9-11 suddenly stopped talking about their individual rights.

I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion  people stopped talking about their individual rights after 9-11 given the fact many people were fueled by 9-11 to not trust their own government over what happened and still don't.

The fact people do not discuss 9-11, the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK, the events of the Nixon era, the Vietnam, Gulf and Afghan wars as they used to, doesn't mean they stopped caring about their individual rights and do not question government policies in regards to those important incidents of their history.

With due respect are you projecting your own complacency for the topic on others?

Americans openly identify with Trump each time he repeats he is fighting government in what he does and in the name of individual rights. How can you miss that? How do you miss the constant questioning of anything initiated by governments in the US? 

Seriously I don't get that. The sheer volume of people questioning government powers in the US was fueled by the very thing you mentioned and still is fueled by it and many other incidents.

If you are talking about Canadians I would think there are more people who may reflect your passive acceptance of  government authority than there would be in the US per ratio to our total population, I also think you under-estimate the concern many of us have over the erosion of individual rights. The fact we do not shoot you  with an assault rifle does not mean we do not care about such issues.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Rue

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

That is a big subjective  assumption that people after 9-11 suddenly stopped talking about their individual rights.

I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion  people stopped talking about their individual rights after 9-11 given the fact many people were fueled by 9-11 to not trust their own government over what happened and still don't.

Please read my post again.

[Rue]

On 5/15/2020 at 12:01 PM, Argus said:

Do you even know what a police state is?

How many political prisoners do you believe there are in Canada?

 

You quickly forget how fast Trudeau implemented the War Measures Act and enabled arbitrary detention of perceived enemies of the state. Now we have a Charter Of Rights supposedly to prevent what he did but it still has a section enabling state imperative to override individual rights. 

Your current leader and son of this man, praises China's government efficiency and believes it's acceptable to try directly interfere with on going legal proceedings to protect his partisan interests, one being Lavalin a company that financed the building a state of the art prison for the detention and  torture of the political enemies of Mummar Ghadafi.

You have a PM creating arbitrary lists of guns to ban and you are living at a time when most of us are in lockdown..you clearly are selective in what you see.

Some of us believe too much power in government is a threat to democracy. We believe that because we come from countries and histories that taught us that or these are people who have been arbitrarily arrested, detained or forcefully taken from parents and placed in schools to be abused or told where we should live.

You choose to seevonky from your perspective what you think you need. Government is simply an agent you use to imposevyourcsubjectivd opinions on others. Thanks but I prefer a more balanced approach to state and individual rights. Is that you Justin?

Any other questions?

Edited May 18, 2020 by Rue