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

sometimes i wish we wouldn't call it 'teams and shit'.  most of us here are really well thought out folks who try to ignore the uniform someone's wearing.  sometimes it's values and assessment of likelihoods when considering risk and fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

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.

Why does that matter? Is the amount of Trump knob gobling the only metric you use as to how good a piece is? 

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

10 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

That's not a right.

The right to live and not have your life knowingly and recklessly taken by another is the most fundamental right.   Those aren’t my words those are the words of Cato and other Libertarian think tanks who put out the human freedom project.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overnight this thread became about the National Review, did people not read the original article? Probably because Nevada Convert assumed National Review was the source.

10 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

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.

The National Review article actually says:

Quote

Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner is leading an effort to develop a national coronavirus surveillance system in order to track patient data almost in real time, Politico reported on Tuesday based on conversations with four people involved in the ongoing effort.

At some point, Politico's accuracy should be debated not National Review or Fox or anyone else who is simply repeating the Politico story.

This is Politico's original article about the rumored surveillance database:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/kushner-coronavirus-surveillance-174165

10 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

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.

Trump was asked about the database yesterday in the briefing. He said he didn't know anything about it but said its “not a bad idea”, “it sounds very scientific" and "it also has to do with rights and other constitutional questions.”

Video of his answer below:

 

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.

If the person you were killing was yourself I would agree with all of this statement.   For example, I disagree with helmet laws because you should have the right to choose if you want to drive down the road at increased risk of death.   I however agree with drunk driving laws as those have a reasonable risk of death an injury to another person.   
 

So your statement has a false premise because you aren’t choosing between your freedom of action versus your potential to die.  You are choosing between your freedom of action versus your potential of causing someone else to die.   By the measure you and @BSUTOP25 use you should be arguing against drunk driving laws also as authoritarian overreach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

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. 

I read the human freedom project every year.   It’s written by the Cato institute and I suggest you try it.

By the way, I get why you reject this argument.   It goes straight to the argument around modifying gun laws and you are smart enough to see that correlation.  Luckily for those with asthma and other diseases affected by Covid, the virus doesn’t have a lobby feeding hundreds of thousands of dollars to our legislatures.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FresnoFacts said:

Overnight this thread became about the National Review, did people not read the original article? Probably because Nevada Convert assumed National Review was the source.

The National Review article actually says:

At some point, Politico's accuracy should be debated not National Review or Fox or anyone else who is simply repeating the Politico story.

This is Politico's original article about the rumored surveillance database:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/kushner-coronavirus-surveillance-174165

Trump was asked about the database yesterday in the briefing. He said he didn't know anything about it but said its “not a bad idea”, “it sounds very scientific" and "it also has to do with rights and other constitutional questions.”

Video of his answer below:

 

Yes, I read it.  My sole question has not been answered.  How exactly does this database help stop the spread of Covid beyond the data we already have? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NVGiant said:

Sounds like everybody wants their cake and eat it, too.

People want to reopen the economy sooner rather than later? This is how you do it.

People want stronger mitigation measures? Step on up.

Otherwise, we get what we have now. Social isolation for an undetermined amount time. Or reopen the economy blind, and within a month we're shut down again.

The bottom line is there are no good choices. So what flavor of shit is your favorite?

I would rather eat shit flavored with liberty. I can’t understand how so many are willing to give that up to feel safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sean327 said:

I would rather eat shit flavored with liberty. I can’t understand how so many are willing to give that up to feel safe.

So you think no controls? No anything? From a public policy standpoint, let's go on with our life as if nothing is happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

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. 

First off I never agreed with or suggested preemptively throwing monitoring and surveillance on people.   I pointed out in many cases people already have this data on their phone.   

I do believe most people are helpful in this situation and would comply anyway.  The discussion is more about what, if any, are the remedies in the case where people don’t comply.   

You can quit trying to paint my position as something it is not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

Yes, I read it.  My sole question has not been answered.  How exactly does this database help stop the spread of Covid beyond the data we already have? 

I wasn't referring to you. But some of this thread was debating a source that simply copied another source. The original accuracy and the proposal itself are more important.

As I said yesterday if the reporter's wording was accurate I do not see how tracking every single medical visit for any reason helps either.

As a side note about data use, Sweden is now taking a look at cell phone data to see how movement is impacting spread and if other measures are needed.

Supposedly it is anonymized data but as I also mentioned yesterday research is showing some anonymized data sets can be re-identified.

Quote

Swedish health authorities are set to use mobile data to analyse how people's movement affected the spread of the coronavirus in Sweden.

The Swedish Public Health Agency, Folkhälsomyndigheten, has been granted access to these mobile data by network operator Telia. The data, the agency stated, will be aggregated and anonymised.

Health authorities want to use the information to study how mobility patterns within the population coincide with the spread of the coronavirus, also known as Covid-19, across Sweden.

The data could subsequently also be used as the basis for future policy proposals or to assess the effects of measures that have already been taken to limit the spread of the virus, such as the recommendations regarding social distancing and avoiding unnecessary journeys.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200409/sweden-to-use-mobile-data-to-track-coronavirus-spread

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mysfit said:

So long as they are tracking ONLY COVID-19, fine.

 

The part that says where and what they are being treated for is too broad.

Do you really believe that’s what will happen? You’re more intelligent than that. Every time a govt is given this kind of power they abuse it and refuse to give it up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The right to live and not have your life knowingly and recklessly taken by another is the most fundamental right.   Those aren’t my words those are the words of Cato and other Libertarian think tanks who put out the human freedom project.   

The right is to not have your life taken by another. The definition of "Knowingly" and "recklessly" are defined by the state, as are the terms wherein the state is allowed to define when, where and how it intervenes. The state has no rights. 

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

3 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

The right is to not have your life taken by another. The definition of "Knowingly" and "recklessly" are defined by the state, as are the terms wherein the state is allowed to define when, where and how it intervenes. The state has no rights. 

I think we agree here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

If the person you were killing was yourself I would agree with all of this statement.   For example, I disagree with helmet laws because you should have the right to choose if you want to drive down the road at increased risk of death.   I however agree with drunk driving laws as those have a reasonable risk of death an injury to another person.   
 

Every single amendment in the bill of rights has resulted in deaths. So any of the freedoms you cherish deeply increase the risk of harm or death for other people. You can say this about any right. I mean, helmet laws decrease my liability as a driver because if I hit you with a helmet on, you are less likely to cause me financial and psychological damage by dying. So if we're all connected, then we should all be forcing each other to do things in order to limit our own personal risk. You not wearing a helmet puts me at risk in a very real, very material way.

31 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

So your statement has a false premise because you aren’t choosing between your freedom of action versus your potential to die.  You are choosing between your freedom of action versus your potential of causing someone else to die.   By the measure you and @BSUTOP25 use you should be arguing against drunk driving laws also as authoritarian overreach.

I actually do have a problem with a number of drunk driving laws... and their more troubling legacy, which is all laws related to using your phone while driving.

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

11 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Do you really believe that’s what will happen? You’re more intelligent than that. Every time a govt is given this kind of power they abuse it and refuse to give it up. 

She doesn't which is why she opposed it.  Not because she was anti-Trump and somehow switched sides because it came out of Trump's mouth.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

I think we agree here.

Yes, and we disagree on how the state should define those terms and their powers to intervene. I think we could have skipped the back and forth and just ended up there I suppose.

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

26 minutes ago, sean327 said:

I would rather eat shit flavored with liberty. I can’t understand how so many are willing to give that up to feel safe.

I mean, it's not just feel safe. Police states are safer places in general. Look at NYC since Giuliani. It's safer.

The real question we should be grappling with is what is the cost to being safer... @NVGiant and @sactowndog are arguing in good faith here, in that they are demanding people who believe the way I do account for the costs of liberty. There are costs. And we must be willing to account for that when arguing for our rights to autonomy and self-determination.

I'm willing to do that. I believe deeply in prison and criminal justice reform. At least in the short term, movement on that will make us collectively less safe and less healthy. The more people in prison, the safer we are. The less drugs on the street, the safer and healthier we are. But at what cost? We should be willing to have that kind of conversation right now or in the direct aftermath of this... and that conversation includes an actual, real conversation about the risk of this virus - who it kills or hospitalizes, where they are, what their health status was, what - if any - difference it made to shut down all social and economic interaction that isn't defined by the state as "essential" as opposed to taking a lighter hand and giving people more choices to how they want to protect themselves and their families. 

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

5 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I mean, it's not just feel safe. Police states are safer places in general. Look at NYC since Giuliani. It's safer.

The real question we should be grappling with is what is the cost to being safer... @NVGiant and @sactowndog are arguing in good faith here, in that they are demanding people who believe the way I do account for the costs of liberty. There are costs. And we must be willing to account for that when arguing for our rights to autonomy and self-determination.

I'm willing to do that. I believe deeply in prison and criminal justice reform. At least in the short term, movement on that will make us collectively less safe and less healthy. The more people in prison, the safer we are. The less drugs on the street, the safer and healthier we are. But at what cost? We should be willing to have that kind of conversation right now or in the direct aftermath of this... and that conversation includes an actual, real conversation about the risk of this virus - who it kills or hospitalizes, where they are, what their health status was, what - if any - difference it made to shut down all social and economic interaction that isn't defined by the state as "essential" as opposed to taking a lighter hand and giving people more choices to how they want to protect themselves and their families. 

The problem is most aren’t willing to even entertain having the conversation. To me that’s the scary part. The usual suspects on both sides look at us Libertarians as hippy lettuce smoking nut jobs who aren’t worthy of having a seat at the table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mysfit said:

The heroes part was snide and a dig.

Uncalled for and hostile. I don't understand why people have to be so unpleasant towards each other here. We all complain about the lack of civility these days and all I can say is, look in the mirror.

Are you phucking bipolar? One minute you are calling some posters every name in the book and the next minute you make posts like this. Maybe you should heed your own advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...