If your argument is "we already have the tech, let's just use it to track all the data" ok, fine, I disagree but it's valid. (We have phones with GPS and Internet, that's all, if GPS is good enough.) But when you say "the data is already there" I think you're wrong.
-
-
Replying to @FiloSottile @jacobinmag
No, my argument is that the data is already collected by some combination of ISPs and installed apps. Along the lines of this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/19/opinion/location-tracking-cell-phone.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
And of course a large OS vendor and location tracker who will remain nameless.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard @jacobinmag
I know there are some examples—I'll make it even easier, just scroll
@chronic's timeline—but they are either opt-in or pushed back by the platform (e.g. iOS 13 killed a lot of background location tracking). I think the average phone is not sending off location.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I would love to know what is actually out there and deployed. These location data vendors are obviously collecting a lot of it. I agree with you (or what I think you're saying) that this debate is more useful if we get to specifics and not theoretical capabilities.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Indeed, and on the other hand I would be surprised if data like "coarse occasional location pings of < 3.6% of people in the US" (from the NYT article) had epidemiological value. Maybe I'm wrong! But "the data is already there" makes a dozen assumptions I'd be surprised by.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This is why I want the bottom-feeders of the location tracking world to talk to the epidemiologists. People like me tweeting about it from first principles is just wankery. But there's also this weird notion that if the data isn't perfect, it's useless, which I also find unlikely
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
I mean, sure, have them talk! But I don't want them in the room if something new or expanded is built. Once you take their data it gets easy for them to argue they are best equipped to build and operate an expanded capability. Not theoretical, NSO Group is going for it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
My whole stance in this debate is to not build new stuff, for this reason
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't see how you stop them from pitching "here's how many human lives we could save if we were deployed more widely and were given a more powerful API" once you brought them in and cleared them morally. Or how you explain why not do that to public and politicians.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
This is Google's entire pitch for why it should be allowed a privileged point of view into private lives. "Look at all the good we can do, and people love us". The way to explain why not is to talk about the social harms of a surveillance society, which people do care about.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.