CDC Wants to Track Travelers 299
gearspring writes "According to Government Health IT the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wants your email address, your mobile phone number, names of your traveling companions, your name, your address, and your emergency contacts name, address, and phone number. This information would be gathered by airlines, travel agents, and online reservation systems for all travelers. Their goal is to protect us in the event of a pandemic. The SARS crisis showed them the difficulty of notifying people that they may have been exposed to a disease. It is a noble goal, but couldn't they do this anonymously?"
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Anonymously? What, will they use a war-dialer to randomly notify people that someone somewhere was likely exposed to a new strain of bird flu? Maybe a really big phone tree?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
B) That's great for Europe and the rest of the world, but the next influenza pandemic doesn't seem likely to originate in Vienna or Nice. Does Ho Chi Minh city have such a system in place? Something makes me doubt it.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
This message is from the center for disease control. We are now watching you leave 1 Main Street and
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that the idea is to be able to find people who have been in contaminated areas after the fact, so that they can be monitored and quarantined if necessary. I doubt the idea is to preemptively notify people before they travel to high risk areas - rather, it's to find people who just left Phnom Penh to return to the States, now that people in Phnom Penh (or wherever) are suddenly dropping like flies.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
It's also much harder to enforce.
Just FYI.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if they already have the information, they don't need this latest measure then, do they? So if they do have the information, I'd have to oppose gathering it twice.
And if they don't, then there's still something for opposing the encroachment of the Surveillance State.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, it's not like if you inform them, they will automatically and volunteerly go into quarantine. That's one of the major issues when SARS striked. Most people that should be quarantined still went to work because their bosses will fire their @ss if they don't. And nevermind the decisions made by health officials here in Toronto. I
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
On the other hand I can think of a lot of abuses of the measure that wouldn't any new circumstance to make them happen.
I mean SARS didn't kill anymore than the usual winter flu outbreak would have done, and the current avian flu sca
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
I think in the event of a pandemic the gouvernment has other priorities than tying your name to your phone number.
B) That's great for Europe and the rest of the world, but the next influenza pandemic doesn't seem likely to originate in Vienna or Nice. Does Ho Chi Minh city have such a system in place? Something makes me doubt it.
E
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Nah, the point is io insure that if you're in an area that's suddenly become hot, you don't hop on a plane and bring it home without them knowing about it. See my reply to the other poster above.
Every mayor city has a mobile phone system, and implementing the 'send an SMS to every newcomer' system should be trivial.
See above. As I said, the point is not so that you know about the risk, t
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Funny)
well surely its going to be a lot easier if an area suddenly becomes hot to either stop the flights from leaving, or quarantine them when they arrive..?
If the point is that you register at the airport with where you are going (or been), then when you have already come back and it turns out that the population at that location is dropping like flies (o
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Exactly, but in order to do that, they have to know who you are. Also, the helicopters may not be black :)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the Netherlands we have a provision in the criminal code that requires people that know about a public health risk to inform the government. This rule overrules doctor-patient privilege and other forms o
Unfortunately.... (Score:5, Interesting)
He has publicly stated if a pandemic strikes there will be martial law, and
the national guard, state police, local police, and "other" authorities will
block "all" travel .
My quetion to this is , who is gonna stop the birds from flying around ???
Want to take that to a WHOLE new level ???
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8788 [scienceblog.com]
Remember the civet cat and Sars ???? Oh my, guess what .
This virus is changing, and it is not done changing .
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8372 [newscientist.com]
If this thing becomes transmitible to the common house cat, killing and eating birds in
every city that has alley cats . We got ourselves a recipe for a bad situation .
Another point of this strain that is being missed is the mortality rate so far .
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?n
If this thing kicks off at anywhere near this supposed 75%, it will be worse than the plague .
Some current numbers put it under 50% and lets hope it becomes less deadly as it mutates .
Keep in mind the 1918 pandemic was 2 - 5%, and not with modern medicine .
This has the potential for a major catastrophe .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu [wikipedia.org]
20 - 50 million world wide died in a time before widespread food shipment and travel .
A pandemic has reoccured with regularity every few decades, but this is shaping up to be
the deadliest in modern times if the mortality rates are anywhere near what they are now .
I hope all countries around the world take this VERY seriously .
Ex-MislTech
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:5, Funny)
every city that has alley cats . We got ourselves a recipe for a bad situation
We'll be safe. When (if ever) do you think was the last time a slashdotter got any pussy?
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:2)
Well, except for that largish war that was going on at the time, causing both food and people to be shipped around the world.
In fact, your link points out that the stresses of combat may have accelerated the progress of the disease, as well as distrust of some medicines because they were from overseas.
The Spanish flu was probably made quite worse by the suddenly widespread food shipment and travel.
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:2)
Want to take that to a WHOLE new level ???
Simple. We will deploy Phalanx defence system [tackdriver.com] around the perimeter of every city. Not one pigeon will fly in or out, without being first turned into pate.
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Irrelevant, as _no_ antibiotics were in use in 1918. Penicilline was (re)discovered in 1928, but wasn't actually used until the 1940s. Sulfonamides were in use in the 1930s. * While vaccination has certainly come a long way from 1918, to date, no one has ever actually cured a virus.
What does vaccination have to do with "curing a virus" ?
Also, antiviral drugs are avai
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
111-111-1111 lois
111-111-1112 lois
111-111-1113 lois
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
It is being done anonymously. Through the CDC.
Are you gullible enough to believe that it's really the CDC that wants this data?Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
LOL. I'm all ears, then. You wake up tomorrow to find that there's a major outbreak of a new strain of bird flu in some Asian city. This strain is now transmissible from person to person and it's airborne. How do you find Americans who were in that city three days ago, but aren't there any more? How do you prevent each potential Typhoid Mary from walking around your town and coughing on everyone she meets?
land of free aint wat it used to
Thats not the problem (Score:2)
Re:Thats not the problem (Score:2)
The incubation period, coupled with international flights to everywhere from everywhere else.
Re:Thats not the problem (Score:2)
It doesn't stop every potential vector, but the point is to mitigate at least one likely vector.
What makes you think bird flu will spread when everyone knows about it?
Incubation period, like the other poster said.
SARs never got here.
Dunno about you, but 250+ cases of SARS in Toronto is close enough to "here" to make me a touch edgy.
Re:Thats not the problem (Score:2)
ob simpsons (Score:2)
Is it just me that hears this to the tune of "the old gray mare" as sung by the old man in the simpsons [tv.com]
poohneat the land of the free, aint wat it used to be aint wat it used be. aint wat it used to be.
announcer and now, the poohneat dancers!
poohneat the land of the free, aint wat it used to be aint wat it used be. aint wat it used to be.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Anonymous Notification? (Score:5, Funny)
It just begs the question, doesn't it?
Re:Anonymous Notification? (Score:2)
Anonymously? How? (Score:3, Insightful)
Err.. probably not. Even if you only gave them a phone number, or an e-mail address, you wouldn't be anonymous any more. And if you didn't give them any personally identifying information, how would they be able to contact you?
Besides, I think I'd want to know that I'd possibly contracted some deadly disease, rather than remain anonymous
Re:Anonymously? How? (Score:2, Funny)
OK so far...
In response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials have proposed new federal regulations to electronically track more than 600 million U.S. airline passengers a year traveling on more than 7 million flights through 67 hub airports.
Ummm... anyone care to do the geometric expansion on this one? CDC is gonna need one hell of a call center. Perhaps
Re:Anonymously? How? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anonymity
read the article! (Score:5, Informative)
Almost all airlines keep that information already in some form (for marketing, frequent flyer programs, etc.), they just may be too disorganized to be able to respond to CDC requests. This would require them to be able to do that. I don't see a problem with that. This kind of mandate would even be compatible with a strict data retention and privacy standard that requires deletion of all customer data after, say, a couple of weeks.
Same DB that other feds already use? (Score:2)
The real problem will be, that it is the same DB that the feds will use, via the patriot act, to track who is going where outside of the USA.
What the airlines really have... (Score:2)
When you fly international, the airlines will then ask for e
Re:read the article! (Score:2, Informative)
And we don't have to guess whether this "exceeds" what airlines already keep because the information they want is right in the article. I don't know about you, but my airline has all that information on file already, plus dietary preferences and a lot of other information.
As for the time limit, there is no time limit at all right now anyway. I'm ju
Re:read the article! (Score:2)
I agree that it's very bad for data to be sent to the government for data mining purposes: it open the door to blackmail, false accusations, and other statistical accidents and abuses of power.
But my point is: that's not what's happening
Re:read the article! (Score:2)
That makes it look okay at first glance. But then, if some government entity wants that info, it would be easy enough for them to find an "emergency" that would justify getting it. After the info-gathering has gone on long enough for people to get used to it, you'd probably see law enforcement demanding info in connection with terrorism investigations and such.
Homeless? (Score:5, Interesting)
No address, no contacts, no email, no phone. Are you going to deny someone travel because they can't afford these things? Or choose not to have them?
Re:Homeless? (Score:5, Interesting)
For more details, see:
http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm [cryptome.org]
Travel (Score:2)
Also, I've done some work with the Georgia Law Center for the Homeless and I believe they've gotten homeless people gov't ID before, though I don't think driver's licenses.
Re:Homeless? (Score:2)
Re:Homeless? (Score:2)
All this airline "security" we are subjected to now was not dreamed up by the airlines. I doubt they would have added all this extra expense on their own initiative. If it wasn't a government mandate, then why are government forces (police and/or military) ready to take you aside if you so much as look at them funny?
Re:Homeless? (Score:4, Insightful)
There may be some people who want to get rid of searches and security altogether, but it's the ID requirement that is really onerous. If you allow the airlines to search your bags, you walk through a metal detector, you even allow them to search your person, then why the hell do they need to see a photo ID as well? Does a lack of ID suddenly make a person dangerous?
I'm happy to go through even a pastiche of a security check that will weed out the stupidest criminals.
I guess that's where we're different. I don't like to submit to false authority. I suppose you would also be happy to have your house or car searched without a warrant, and would gladly spread your cheeks for a cavity search. I actually appreciate the constitutional prohibition on unlawful search and seizure (what's left of it, after the Reagan regime). Civil liberties don't protect themselves--but I must be old-fashioned for caring about an antiquated document like the Bill of Rights. And no, Big Brother doesn't have mind-reading satellites, but that's on their wish list, now that they have Eschelon, the PATRIOT Act, and the ability to jail citizens indefinitely without trial.
Let's be clear. Without a government-issued ID there is no actual prohibition on TRAVEL. There is, however, the ability for COMMERCIAL, PRIVATE transport companies (be they bus, train, plane, ferry, whatever) to REFUSE SERVICE to people failing to present such an ID.
Let's be clear. You are obviously misinformed, unaware of the fact that the government is requiring airlines to ask for ID, citing a secret law [wired.com] that does not exist on the books. How would you like to be convicted of violating a law that you aren't allowed to read, and just take the police's word it exists? How could a lawyer possibly defend a client against such a law? That sounds pretty close to a definition of "police state," or at least some nightmarish Kafka story.
I hate sloppy language, especially when it's used by chicken-littles to suggest we're moving toward a police state...like the hypocrites at Cryptome.
You hate sloppy language? Here's something that should be straight-forward for you: we're moving toward a police state. That's not a suggestion, but a fact. If you can't see that, you're more oblivious than the "stupidest criminals" you mentioned. Start paying attention.
Re:Homeless? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you just miss the last decade?
The reality you describe was the way it was before Homeland Security took over and before the TSA took over arline security. Now we have government agents manning security checkpoints requiring government issue
Re:Homeless? (Score:2)
I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate. Go ahead, throw your vote away. muhahahah
Re:Homeless? (Score:2)
Unless John Gilmore [toad.com] wins his battle against the "show me your papers" police, you'll at least need ID to fly. But hell if I'll give them anything besides the mandatory info--I have no obligation to have a phone (cell or otherwise), email address, or emergency cont
For the greater good (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For the greater good (Score:2)
Gee, thanks for the hand there captain obvious. I hadn't spotted that.
Cutting paper (Score:3, Funny)
Whaaa? (Score:5, Funny)
Cool! And what about here goal?
Maybe not such a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep it's a noble goal but it sounds to me like an avenue to control the masses the first time the wrong person get his hands on the "the easy button" this provides. Noble goal but not a noble result.
It may save lives but increase overall human misery. Power like that just *finds* its way into the wrong hands. --JTRe:Maybe not such a good idea (Score:2)
Not here in america! Here we willingly give it [cnn.com] to the wrong hands
Re:Maybe not such a good idea (Score:2)
Controlling the Masses Danger (Score:2, Interesting)
Problems such as 911 and avian flue have been used as excuse for giving up much of our privacy. Are we heading towards a future much like the book "1984"? What would someone like Hitler have done with RFID technology? No one would have been able to blend into the background and hide from him.
There is a "loss of privacy" pattern in recent years. An example is the plans to use RFID tags in most consumer products. Wallmart and various other companies as well as the U.S. military and federal government agen
Why this isn't bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Could this list be used to track possible terrorist suspects? Yes and you can bet it will be.
But if you're not a terrorist (still don't know if they have a big readership on Slashdot) I don't really see the harm in telling the CDC where you're going so in case some flu pandemic breaks out where you just got back from they can notify you . Sacrificing a little personal freedom for increased safety of the whole is worth it to me in THIS SITUATION. There are other situations where I think the benefits do not outweigh the consequences, but with the increased possibility of a flu pandemic in the future this might just help quell the casualties.
Re:Why this isn't bad... (Score:2)
Let's say there is a massive bird flu outbreak in Lima, Peru. If you're the CDC and you have this list, and assuming its set up in a good database application, you can simply search for those individuals who visited Lima and the surrounding area in the last 2 weeks or so. You get a list of 100 people, then contact them and arrange for them to go to hospitals to get checked out and make sure they're clean, thus preventing them from infecting the rest of
Re:Why this isn't bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, you're right about how it *should* work,but pandemics are rare and it's only a matter of time before someone decides that all data that cost so much to collect is going to waste. Then there's the transitive rational that ruins the whole privacy aspect the CDC is tryin to maintain ie-> "terrorism is an infectious disease" or "the disease was spread *by* terrorists" and now the (insert TLA here) has access to that info immediately until the end of time.
Just wait till the collection agency gets a turn.Re:Why this isn't bad... (Score:2)
In 1918, before the advent of commercial jet flight (i.e., you took a boat if you wanted to cross the Atlantic or Pacific), there was an outbreak of Avian Flu know at the time as the Spanish Flu. Between 25 million and 50 million died (with some estimates going as high as 100 million) from this flu. It killed my great-grandmother, leaving my grandmother and her sister orphans.
The solution is simple for all you privacy extremists (I'm not saying you're one, teaserX, but bear with me):
If
Re:Why this isn't bad... (Score:2)
And once granted, there's a very good chance that this power will mutate into something that could pose a very real threat to people's privacy and liberty. Think "Reds under the Beds", but with Muslims and terrorists instead. Been to a Muslim country? You're on The List. Shared a flight with someone who turns out to be connected to terrorism (however tenuously)? You're on The List. Been to a
Re:Why this isn't bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
But if I'm not a terrorist/ communist/ homosexual/ deviant/ Muslim/ unemployed.... It always boggles my mind how easily people are willing to discard freedoms just because it doesn't affect them. I bet if they took away your 'freedom' to read slashdot you would be all at arms.
Re:Why this isn't bad... (Score:2)
"They" don't know about it, since the information is kept by the airlines, not the CDC. If it is only available when there is a pandemic, then that is good.
But if you're not a terrorist (still don't know if they have a big readership on Slashdot) I don't really see the harm in telling the CDC where you're going so in ca
The Brilliant Way to start... (Score:3, Interesting)
But my health, my child's health! Definitely worth while to store all this information, in the case of an outbreak and all!
We need a constitutional amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
With the seemingly never-ending erosion of privacy these days, congress needs to pass a constitutional amendment that puts clear restrictions on what data the
Re:We need a constitutional amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy this (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but who's going to protect us from them? I'm always leery of people wanting to "protect" me without being asked to do so. And if the airport questionnaire asks "Do you have stairs in your house?", then I think I'd rather walk.
Re:I don't buy this (Score:2)
Re:I don't buy this (Score:3, Informative)
Anon notification...they could use... (Score:2)
our right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
CDC? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, it all makes perfect sense!
Re:CDC? (Score:3, Funny)
Is Slashdot more interested in games than hacking now? What's the world coming to?
Is any of this stuff *that* private? (Score:4, Insightful)
You already have to provide your name due to security regulations. So I don't see how there's any change there, really.
If you want to book travel, chances are you already provided this, in the form of a billing address, or a shipping address... so I don't see why this would be a big deal.
Not too hard to give a fake one, and really, if you want to take the risk of being out-of-contact when the CDC is trying to contact you to tell you you have just been exposed to some sort of new strain of Hemorrhagic Fever... hey, it's your ass that's bleeding, not mine.
Okay, perhaps a stretch. But again, not too hard to set up a hotmail account, "mikes_garbage_email@hotmail.com", and provide that. You never even have to check it, if you don't want to.
I'm not sure of the regs on this, but it would seem to me that using your passport when you travel would get tracked somewhere in some government database already.
And if you don't want to say who you're traveling with? Say you're traveling alone... not so hard, is it? What are they, going to deny you access to the airplane because you talked to someone while waiting in line?
Well, seems to me the airline would already know this, since you booked yourself on the flight and purchased tickets... so I think this falls in the "already tracked" category.
Again, not a particularly unreasonable request... but not hard to give bogus info if you really wanted to, either.
I guess I'm just having a lot of trouble seeing this as any sort of risk or violation of privacy, as I think most of this stuff would either be: a) already tracked, or b) easy to look up given that you HAVE to give your name to get on the plane... with a name and a credit card number, I'd imagine it would be pretty straightforward to track down pretty much anybody. (And let's be honest... sure, you could probably pay cash to buy the ticket... but how many people are REALLY going to do that?) It seems to me that this would simply allow the CDC to speed up the data collection... which means that it would take them 3 days to notify me I've been exposed to the new Ultra-death-killer SARS strain on my return flight from Singapore... rather than 2 weeks later, when I've already developed a strange cough . . .
Yes, on a bus (Score:4, Informative)
(Trivia digression: when did ID for airlines start? Answer: after the 1996 TWA "non-terrorism" crash. Wow, that ID stuff was really effective, wasn't it?)
TFA/CDC may have mentioned only airlines, but of course it would be extended to all forms of travel. Pretty clever, actually -- it's easier to sell the idea of ID'ing on buses for the bird flu than it is for terrorism.
And I didn't see a link for it in any of the +5 comments, so here is Gilmore v. Gonzales [papersplease.org], John Gilmore's attempt to challenge the practice of ID'ing at airports.
Re:Is any of this stuff *that* private? (Score:2)
If you are Arab, say you are travelling alone and are then seen speaking to other Arabs boarding the same flight, you can bet your ass that you will be denied access. This is what screening is supposed to be looking out for.
Re:Is any of this stuff *that* private? (Score:2)
Re:Is this stuff *that* private? Doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
As a taxpayer, do you want every government agency tracking your every move just from a financial point of view?
The CDC wants to track travelers in the event of a nasty disease. What can that do beyond simply asking the people with common and severe symptoms questions (if they want) about where they have been and whatnot? Isn't that just as effective and cheaper?
As someone else pointed out, the airlines started compulsory checking and requiring IDs for travel in 1996.
Re:Is this stuff *that* private? Doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
The CDC would be stupid not to interview these people anywa
Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:4, Insightful)
There this piece from the Alaska HSS: "Although the recent spread of avian influenza to Europe is a major agricultural and economic threat, it is not a pandemic. [suvalleynews.com]
Scientists and public health experts agree that we cannot stop an influenza pandemic, but we can control and limit disease and death through early detection and a well-planned response. In Alaska, disease-monitoring systems are in place for detection of influenza.
Call me paranoid, but it looks like a multi-pronged approach. "See, there's no chance of a pandemic, it's an economic crises. But just in case, we'd like to get your information, and here a small chip we would like to plant just under your skin, temporarily. Thanks."
I live in the air crossroads (Alaska), for birds and people, and I'm not taking any chances, but I'm not going to panic, either.
I see that Alaska has been monitoring the Avian Flu since at least 2000.
They want to collect these? (Score:2)
1) Ummm, okay, they can have that I guess.
2) Current? Well, let us just say I'm transient with no fixed address, yeah, that's it.
3) I don't have my own phone number, seriously. Not everyone is privileged enough to pay $20+ per month to only use it scarcely.
4) Who says I have an e-mail address? Where is an e-mail address required to travel?
5) See number 1 above.
6) Ummm, I'm a loner, yeah, that's it.
7) See number 1 above.
8) See number 6 above.
1) First, last
Re:They want to collect these? (Score:2)
They can have mine. It is seat37AflightUA666@mailinator.com
Big brother is your friend (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big brother is your friend (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, do you support one of the following?
1. Gun Control
2. "Hate Speech" Censorship Laws
3. IRS Auditing (forcing people to PROVE they are innocent of tax violations, instead of the other way around)
4. Forced Public Education
5. Eminent Domain
6. "War on Drugs" and Drug control
7. "Campaign Finance Reform" (political censorship laws)
8. Copyrights
9. Banning "Dangerous" animals
10. Public "Decentcy" Laws (anti-pornography cencorship)
11. Manditory Enviornmental Inspections (forcing people to PROVE they are innocent of enviornmental violations, instead of the other way around)
12. Sobriety Checkpoints
13. Laws against polyigamy.
14. Restricting people from promoting religion in public. (street corner preachers and such)
15. Restricting protests around abortion clinics.
That is just a few. Nearly everyone I know who rails against "The Patriot Act" or some other policy that is fashionable to hate, supports nearly all the restrictive, unconstitutional policies mentioned above. Even if you don't support most of them, it is almost garanteed that you support at least some of them.
The first part of realizing what happened in America (and what is happening elsewhere), is to realize you are part of the problem. You may not support the "Patriot Act", but that doesn't mean you are for freedom. Hardcore totalitarian Marxists are against the Patriot Act... people are against the Patriot Act because it is politicly unfashionable, or because it is promoted by a party that is considered "right wing". But lets focus on the restrictions of freedom, of exceptions to the constitution that you support.
If you are a leftist, and you speak out against citizen disarmament (gun control), or you speak out against feminists wanting to ban the Miss Universe pagent, or speak out against throwing people in jail for expressing controversial political beliefs on campus, you are going to be much more effective in promoting freedom that you would protesting the Patriot Act, or emergency powers to prevent bird flu, or whatever.
You need to eliminate the hatred of freedom from your own political ideology before you can work on someone elses hatred of freedom.
But it won't help *you* (Score:5, Insightful)
if *you* are said traveller, handing over all this information won't help you. So you go to Singapore, fly back, and suddenly Singapore has a SARS outbreak. You won't need the CDC to phone you - it'll be all over the news.
The information will be used so that they can track the disease's spread across the country. It's not Patient Zero (that's P0 for the USA, not P0 for the disease) they'll be helping...given the speed of bureaucracy they'll never reach P0 before symptoms set in.
Being able to examine an outbreak - and trace it back to a P0 - will allow them to work back up the tree via P1, P2, P3...and predict further outbreaks based on their behaviour.
Broadcast (Score:2)
The problem with a surveilance society (Score:2)
Think of the good that could be done by people NOT being forced to report all their income and attempting to lie about it.
We could take care of people as and when they need it, instead of being ripped off by scammers who look for and find every flaw in a system where you have applications to fill out, and 'qualification' hoops to jump through, like you have to be indigent to get any help so any 'bad break' HAS to be catastrophically bad. (Anecdotal evidence: I know
A Lot of The Tracking Efforts... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you happen to not have a mobile phone, you'll be a shadow, moving from place to place and leaving no trace of your presence. At least until you pay for something with a credit card.
No need to identify travelers (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes.
For a pandemic, they could simply broadcast over all TV stations, all newspapers, all radios (Emergency Broadcast System) that people traveling on Plane Flight 123 from LNX to WIN or OSX should contact their local authorities to be tested, innoculated, treated.
An identity provision suggests the authorities want the option to be able to more strictly enforce quarantine measures.
Re:anti-govt attitude (Score:2)
Function creep. Information that is collected exclusively for one purpose, will always end up being used for another purpose, particularly taxation.
As an example, in the UK, universities maintain a list of students registered for each course. The registration details include both a home address and term-time address. With the introduction of the poll tax (charged per person rather than per property), the government passed a law requiring that
Re:anti-govt attitude (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:anti-govt attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:anti-govt attitude (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:anti-govt attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Then on that premise, I demand the government install cameras in everyones homes to stop drug abuse, to stop domestic violence, to stop bomb making, to stop religious cults, to stop all manner of evil deeds that are plotted and conducted in the privacy of peoples homes.
You see where that reasoning gets you? It's a huge slippery slope. You need to decide where to draw the line in the sand. I would recommend you get yourself a history book and start reading. What I know of history tells me that you draw the line in the sand as far away from your home and personal life as possible, or you'll end up with no home and personal life.
Freedom is dangerous. That's the way it is. Maybe you're happy with a big brother watching over you, but I don't want that.
And I thought the basis of the civil rights movement was that everyone was equal.
This is MY life. I don't owe you or anyone else anything. You don't pay my bills. You don't bear my burdens. You don't fight my demons. You don't share my triumphs.
Your "equal rights" do not extend to MY life. Equal rights mean that we are dealt with equally according to the law. It does not mean that you get an equal cut of my labor, or of my freedom. I don't want your freedom, why they hell do you want mine? I'll tell you this, you'll have a great chance of survival against an infectious disease, than against your fellow citizens rising up against you when you try to take away their rights.
Re:anti-govt attitude (Score:2)
Re:Can we use our 'free registration' identities? (Score:2)
Re:Can we use our 'free registration' identities? (Score:2, Insightful)
"I hereby swear that the above information is true and complete".
Soon after on the document will be a statement that says "providing false information is a Federal offence and is punishable by a million years in a government correctional facility.
Re:Can we use our 'free registration' identities? (Score:2)
Re:Mandatory consequences? (Score:2)
Of course. All they need to do is claim that you're a suspected terrorist, and off you go into quarantine.
Re:For your protection.... (Score:2)
They tap whose phones? All 250 million Americans? I pity the fool who has to sift through that data.
they limit your rights to research encryption technology and software protection to protect the economy
If by 'research' you mean 'hacking stuff to get free services', then I see their point.
and they monitor your every move to protect you from a pandemic.
You mean they standardize and organize data already being collected to make it easier for the CDC