Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Kushner wants authoritarian surveillance program for Covid-19

Recommended Posts

Just now, FresnoFacts said:

Maybe this isn't just about Kushner.

Kushner put together a team of people he knows as a coronavirus task force.

One he brought in is Nat Turner, founder of the technology company Flatiron Health.

On Flatiron's blog Turner says, "Inspired by personal experiences with cancer in our families, we always believed that cancer wouldn’t be “solved” by the healthcare community alone; it also needed close collaboration from the technology industry working together hand in hand."

https://flatiron.com/blog/roche/

Moving from a few million cancer patient records as they currently have to having access to everything about everyone's health would be huge. Think Facebook or Google for healthcare data with the government helping them get started.

no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mysfit said:

My last engineering job, during the interview the director was concerned about me being the only woman in the group and if I could handle it 

A few  months in he came to the conclusion he was worried about the wrong gender. I miss that group. We had fun.

My wife says college was the first time in her life she lived with women other than her low key mother. It took my wife a long time to make the adjustment from a male dominated to a female dominated situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Los_Aztecas said:

This is going to sound strange, but when I worked in a male dominated profession it was really difficult working with women. But, on the flip side, now that I work in a female dominated profession they are a breeze to work with.

I think the environment, culture, are different. It changes perceptions and expectation. I have found in male dominated situations, being assertive is viewed as aggressive. Gender roles and expectations are....interesting. 

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Anyway, I’m going to bed. But this thread is exactly why I don’t refer to leftists as “liberals.” Real liberals do not believe in or support police surveillance states. 

What I find most interesting about you is your consistent and absolute insistence on individual freedoms at even the cost of another’s life.  In Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the Life part is fundamental because without it the rest are impossible.   

While I respect your opinion, it is not aligned with major libertarian think tanks around the world such as those like the Cato Institute.   It’s not an easy decision whenever you have to balance rights but the Human Freedom Project clearly weighs the impact and potential of loss of life highly.   

What I don’t respect is your insistence that it’s not even worth a discussion.   The comes across as a callous disregard for the most basic right of all.   There is nothing libertarian in that callous disregard no matter how many names you call others.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FresnoFacts said:

My wife says college was the first time in her life she lived with women other than her low key mother. It took my wife a long time to make the adjustment from a male dominated to a female dominated situation.

Heh

The female of the species tends to be more territorial. Ever see 2 women try and share a bathroom?

 

Women internalize, men externalize.

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

You don't get it.

Of course they have a national database, how the hell else are they texting people on their phone that they have to self isolate because went to the same store as someone who was on the same train as someone who tested positive.  And that's the reason to oppose this thing they have been talking about doing.  Obviously the real reason for the database isn't to know where to send extra ventilators to.  Gimme a break.

A national directory sure.  That doesn’t mean a national database of healthcare visits.  Now granted, if they have national health care they may have it already but it’s not relevant to tracing.   Nor would Krushner’s health care database help with tracing.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mugtang said:

Kushner can go phuck himself with this proposal. 
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kushner-considering-using-personal-patient-data-to-create-national-coronavirus-surveillance-system/

Phuck this authoritarian bullshit. 

This is a “2020 left winger” kind of idea, which makes you wonder where the true liberals went that supposedly championed civil liberties.
 

This is a bullshit story if there ever was one. If Jarred were to bring this idea to Trump, he’d completely lose it and have Ivanka smack him around. I can guarantee you that Trump would never ever consider something this dumb, nor would his base tolerate it. Consider the source. Jonah Goldberg and his National Review have become the capital and epicenter of the small and unimportant never-Trump movement. You might as well use stories off of MSNBC, and that’s pretty damn sad.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sactowndog said:

someone else’s right for you to not knowingly expose them to a disease.   

That's not a right.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

This is a “2020 left winger” kind of idea, which makes you wonder where the true liberals went that supposedly championed civil liberties.
 

This is a bullshit story if there ever was one. If Jarred were to bring this idea to Trump, he’d completely lose it and have Ivanka smack him around. I can guarantee you that Trump would never ever consider something this dumb, nor would his base tolerate it. Consider the source. Jonah Goldberg and his National Review have become the capital and epicenter of the small and unimportant never-Trump movement. You might as well use stories off of MSNBC, and that’s pretty damn sad.

I take it you didn’t consider the source, or even open it to read it. Hint, it’s not Jonah Goldberg and it’s citing reporting by Politico.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I take it you didn’t consider the source, or even open it to read it. Hint, it’s not Jonah Goldberg and it’s citing reporting by Politico.

Oh don’t be a dick. I take it you’re very confused. Jonah Goldberg pretty much runs the National Review with Rich Lowry who are both hardcore never-Trumpers, and they keep the content that way as much as possible. Zachary Evans who is a National Review writer wrote the article, not a writer from Politico. 

When people write articles, they often cherry pick statements from other sources to support their narrative, and he referenced Politico in this one. The point you’re completely missing is if there’s an article on the National Review, no matter who even wrote it, it had to pass the Goldberg/Lowry test which means it had to be a total BS hit piece on Trump that satisfies them and the small never-Trump readership which I understand is pretty small these days. When you only have around 3% of the GOP that are never-Trumpers, that’s not a big audience.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

Oh don’t be a dick. I take it you’re very confused. Jonah Goldberg pretty much runs the National Review with Rich Lowry who are both hardcore never-Trumpers, and they keep the content that way as much as possible. Zachary Evans who is a National Review writer wrote the article, not a writer from Politico. 

When people write articles, they often cherry pick statements from other sources to support their narrative, and he referenced Politico in this one. The point you’re completely missing is if there’s an article on the National Review, no matter who even wrote it, it had to pass the Goldberg/Lowry test which means it had to be a total BS hit piece on Trump that satisfies them and the small never-Trump readership which I understand is pretty small these days. When you only have around 3% of the GOP that are never-Trumpers, that’s not a big audience.

Convert, why do you talk when you don’t know what you’re talking about? Is this something you just can’t help?

Goldberg stopped being an editor at National Review a year ago.

 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NVGiant said:

My point wasn't for or against this particular policy. To be honest, I'm probably more understanding of this policy than the knee-jerk reaction that was displayed in this thread. Though I obviously trust this administration less than I would most any other, and that has to be factored. But I understand why it could be effective. Really, I am both sympathetic to and weary of almost every argument.

The fact is, from the start, I felt people have been talking about this as if there are good answers, silver bullets (malaria drugs!), and they often ignore the consequences of what direction they think we should choose. 

Really there are only two questions. 

  • How many deaths are you willing to live with? (and if you are willing to live with a lot, then make sure you factor in that the odds increase that your parents or grandparents, friends, wife, etc., die, too)
  • What rights are you willing to give up? (and if you are willing to suspend them, factor in just how hard it could be to get them back).

Because the answers are inversely proportional to one another. Truth is people are going to die, we are going to suspend some rights, and our economy is +++++ed either way. The question is how much of each you are willing to give up. 

I don't disagree with your assessment of the two questions. But at a certain point, we have to be able to answer those questions ourselves.  Is that point now? Maybe not. But when is it going to be that point? And while they may have good intentions - not let people get sick or die - public health officials err on the side every time with every issue by trying hard to not let us make these decisions on our own. But making these decisions ourselves is literally what it means to live in a country where the state's power to protect us is limited because those limits are the only thing that protects us from the state. Every right or liberty we have makes us less safe and requires us to navigate a riskier world. That's why emergency powers are specifically designed to curtail our civil liberties - and rightfully so. The state will always err on the side of imposing order and exercising power even if it's for altruistic reasons, and that's why it's so important for the state to relinquish its current role as the entity that answers those two questions for us. And we will answer it collectively and individually... but many on here may not like the answer. I may not like the answer. 

I'm grumpy about this stuff, as we all know. But at the end of the day I'm a reasonable guy. I'm willing to say that my instincts are not the most valuable in a large-scale crisis situation where a command/control power system is required to instill order and stabilize things on a large scale. I'm grumpy about it, but I'll do my best to play along as nice as I can and help maintain order. If they needed to treat the entire country like we have 3 DUI's, a B&E, half a GTA and an ankle bracelet to set up a situation where our systems and institutions are better suited to handle this disease without total societal collapse, OK. I'm listening. But at the end of the day, we are either willing to do the stuff that epidemiologists say we should do to keep the disease from spreading or not. At some point, we must be treated like autonomous human beings and be allowed to make that decision both on our own and as a society and be willing to live with the consequences. IMO, that's the definition of a free country. And it's why I'm honestly curious why some people are drawing a line here... like, what is going to be the breaking point where people are no longer willing to let the government make this decision for them? I dunno what it will be.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Convert, why do you talk when you don’t know what you’re talking about? Is this something you just can’t help?

Goldberg stopped being an editor at National Review a year ago.

 

And Rich Lowry is anything but a hardcore never-Trumper. He is tepid on the guy, but goes out and defends him to the NPR crowd all the time. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

And Rich Lowry is anything but a hardcore never-Trumper. He is tepid on the guy, but goes out and defends him to the NPR crowd all the time. 

He does. Not that it matters to Convert.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Convert, why do you talk when you don’t know what you’re talking about? Is this something you just can’t help?

Goldberg stopped being an editor at National Review

4 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

And Rich Lowry is anything but a hardcore never-Trumper. He is tepid on the guy, but goes out and defends him to the NPR crowd all the time. 

a year ago.

 

LOL, he doesn’t hate him more than some of the lefty’s in the press. but he can still be very critical. Why does he allow anti-Trump articles all over his publication? Fvcking duh.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Convert, why do you talk when you don’t know what you’re talking about? Is this something you just can’t help?

Goldberg stopped being an editor at National Review a year ago.

 

Is being wrong a hobby for you, or are you just really that bad? How many times do I have to correct you? 

You have a guy, Goldberg, that’s been working there for 21 years, has been a heavy influence for 21 years, shaped the place for 21 years, and been very close to Lowry forever. News flash, just because he’s no longer an editor there doesn’t mean his influence just disappears. He just wanted to try something different. Their regular long conversations aren’t going to stop, they aren’t going to stop bouncing ideas off of each other. And I’m sure they’ll get back to their friendly debates on CSPAN. He’ll still read the publication and offer Lowry feedback that he wants. But it absolutely doesn’t surprise me that you’d think that a guy that’s been there forever, shaped the place and still an influence on Lowry would have his influence disappear instantly when he quit as an editor. 🤠👍


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-end-of-an-era/amp/

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sactowndog said:

What I find most interesting about you is your consistent and absolute insistence on individual freedoms at even the cost of another’s life.  In Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the Life part is fundamental because without it the rest are impossible.   

While I respect your opinion, it is not aligned with major libertarian think tanks around the world such as those like the Cato Institute.   It’s not an easy decision whenever you have to balance rights but the Human Freedom Project clearly weighs the impact and potential of loss of life highly.   

What I don’t respect is your insistence that it’s not even worth a discussion.   The comes across as a callous disregard for the most basic right of all.   There is nothing libertarian in that callous disregard no matter how many names you call others.   

LOL -- you obviously don't know shit about the Cato Institute if you think a police surveillance state is something those folks would advocate. The Cato Institute would align to my view point of maintaining individual liberty even during a pandemic such as this. There are worse things than death, particularly "living" as a subject to an authoritarian state. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sactowndog said:

I potentially agree.   But no one should be knowingly exposed due to another persons indifference.  Care to explain how you balance those points? 

You do realize that we’re a country that presumes innocence until found guilty right? So preemptively throwing mandatory monitoring and surveillance on people is a gross violation of civil rights. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

I don't disagree with your assessment of the two questions. But at a certain point, we have to be able to answer those questions ourselves.  Is that point now? Maybe not. But when is it going to be that point? And while they may have good intentions - not let people get sick or die - public health officials err on the side every time with every issue by trying hard to not let us make these decisions on our own. But making these decisions ourselves is literally what it means to live in a country where the state's power to protect us is limited because those limits are the only thing that protects us from the state. Every right or liberty we have makes us less safe and requires us to navigate a riskier world. That's why emergency powers are specifically designed to curtail our civil liberties - and rightfully so. The state will always err on the side of imposing order and exercising power even if it's for altruistic reasons, and that's why it's so important for the state to relinquish its current role as the entity that answers those two questions for us. And we will answer it collectively and individually... but many on here may not like the answer. I may not like the answer. 

I'm grumpy about this stuff, as we all know. But at the end of the day I'm a reasonable guy. I'm willing to say that my instincts are not the most valuable in a large-scale crisis situation where a command/control power system is required to instill order and stabilize things on a large scale. I'm grumpy about it, but I'll do my best to play along as nice as I can and help maintain order. If they needed to treat the entire country like we have 3 DUI's, a B&E, half a GTA and an ankle bracelet to set up a situation where our systems and institutions are better suited to handle this disease without total societal collapse, OK. I'm listening. But at the end of the day, we are either willing to do the stuff that epidemiologists say we should do to keep the disease from spreading or not. At some point, we must be treated like autonomous human beings and be allowed to make that decision both on our own and as a society and be willing to live with the consequences. IMO, that's the definition of a free country. And it's why I'm honestly curious why some people are drawing a line here... like, what is going to be the breaking point where people are no longer willing to let the government make this decision for them? I dunno what it will be.

But can we be trusted? Look at the emotion in this thread. It’s a reminder that ultimately many answer these questions through their own strict ideological lens, which often is no more useful than through a partisan lens. Everybody has their team.
 

So why the line here? Not sure I am the right person to answer that. I’m probably better off identifying myriad answers, since I see the validity of almost all of them Some have a natural revulsion to such an intrusion of privacy (I wonder how many of them consider themselves Constitutional originalists?) Some might ordinarily be interested in such a program, but have no faith in this particular administration to implement it with restraint. I suspect most of the initial reactions in this thread fall into those two camps. But I bet that doesn’t begin to capture every opinion. Some may not be worried about the philosophical repercussions of it, and just think that the usefulness of such a program was two months ago. Others still might be willing to give it a shot, but leave it to the governors to decide. And some may not think it’s a bad idea at all if it gets us back to normal (whatever that looks like), rights and all. There may be subsets to those answers, but I bet most everybody falls into one of those camps.

So the pragmatist in me would tell you that, no it’s not an all or nothing equation. And it never will be, and it never should be. That there is no point for most where we are “either willing to do the stuff that epidemiologists say we should do to keep the disease from spreading or not.” everyone has their lines, including you. Almost all of us are willing to play along with the public health recommendations to some point, including most of the righteous libertarians. So I don’t quite get the indignation (not from you, but in general) when almost everybody is still trying to figure out where our own points are. The question isn’t why draw the line here, but whether why do any of us draw the line anywhere?

Edit: I should add a caveat. I still haven’t read the story in the OP. I was more fascinated with the initial reaction to it on here than I was in the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...