D&D and the rising pandemic

U
I don’t think you could pass a tracking program in the USA and have it survive a Constitutional challenge without an actual amendment.
Unfortunately, I think you could “Inter arma, enim silent leges” (in times of war, the laws fall silent).

Or to put it another way, as I understand the American Constitution, there are few restraints on widescale invasion of privacy, so long as it isn’t the government doing so.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
A private, opt in commercial product would be legal. We have things like that already- your mobile devices have GPS “location services” and such. We’ve already seen researchers use that data tracking spring breakers from Florida to their homes to see how they correlated with Covid-19 outbreaks.

I was talking about programs directly run and routinely accessed by government agencies, such as has been recently seen in other countries. It may be a powerful tool for organizations like the CDC, EPA, NIH, etc., but it would almost certainly fail any legal pushback. An Amendment could make the tool available, but the process of getting it passed and ratified would take at least a decade.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Some historical perspective: on Covid-19:

Some potentially good news:
 

I was talking about programs directly run and routinely accessed by government agencies, such as has been recently seen in other countries. It may be a powerful tool for organizations like the CDC, EPA, NIH, etc., but it would almost certainly fail any legal pushback. An Amendment could make the tool available, but the process of getting it passed and ratified would take at least a decade.

I would also point out that there is no specific right to privacy in the constitution. IIRC amendments have been discussed a handful of times but never formally voted on.

From a pragmatic standpoint, this means that any tracking program attempted in the US would quite possible but very complicated. As you mention, a court process to approve it could take a decade, but it's also possible that acting to block it could take over a year (when it's hopefully no longer needed). Effectiveness in the interim would depend largely on cooperation at the state and local levels. And, and we have unfortunately seen in the US so far, this often ends up being a political fight rather than one of logic, science, or even philosophy.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
I would also point out that there is no specific right to privacy in the constitution. IIRC amendments have been discussed a handful of times but never formally voted on.

The existence of a right to privacy- while not explicit- is pretty much settled constitutional law. It’s a “penumbral” right, one that, if it didn’t exist, would make certain explicit rights worthless.

And, and we have unfortunately seen in the US so far, this often ends up being a political fight rather than one of logic, science, or even philosophy.

Look at any legal system in the world, and you will find tradeoffs between those. The only question is where the line will be drawn in a particular case.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
Some historical perspective: on Covid-19:
600 - 2400 is "Pandemic response team was never crippled, stockpiles where built up, and we responded fast": see NZ.

6000 - 24,000 is "Pandemic response team was crippled, but CDC and other agencies proactively responded back in February to this issue".

60,000 - 240,000 is "successfully mitigated it with real, actual wartime levels of effort, starting in March" death rate territory.

600,000 - 2,400,000 is "failed mitigation, reaches herd immunity, but curve was spread out so health care system handled it" territory.

6,000,000 - 24,000,000 is "failed mitigation, health care system collapses" territory.

Talking about the "successful, after extreme measures" case and comparing it to other forms of death is, as far as I am considered, dishonest. It understates how bad this situation is, and encourages being complacent.

It is like looking at the number of casualties in WW2 after the nukes where dropped, and implying that the nukes didn't have much impact.
Some potentially good news:
Yep.

Cheap and plentiful tests are the next ray of hope. Then a vaccine or effective proven treatment.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Some potentially good news:

Not far from me, in a now-closed K-mart building, they've set up one of these beasts - it can decontaminate 80,000 N95 masks a day. Each mask can go through the process 5 to 10 times. Use will be available for free to any hospital or first-responder organization in the state.

 
Last edited:

The existence of a right to privacy- while not explicit- is pretty much settled constitutional law. It’s a “penumbral” right, one that, if it didn’t exist, would make certain explicit rights worthless.

But as a "penumbral law" (looked that one up :)), isn't that pretty limited in scope? My understanding is that right to privacy is only a thing in very limited circumstances. You have privacy in your home (covered by search and seizure laws, etc) and you have privacy with your personal information (HIPPA). But you have no real right to privacy when you are in public.

Obviously I'm glossing over a lot of the details (both broad and minutiae, and especially with regards to civil law, which isn't directly applicable here). But at the end of the day, anyone can be filmed in public without giving consent, and the police can do things like scan license plates or track when you leave and enter your home without a warrant; they just can't search you or follow you inside without one. That's the same sort of information that could be collected by the government to help track COVID. There's plenty of allowance to watch movement of people between buildings in a town, along roads between cities, or any other form of regional transit.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not arguing this is morally right or wouldn't get eventually tossed out. I'm just saying that I think the laws are gray/loose enough to allow something like this to happen on a temporary basis.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
600 - 2400 is "Pandemic response team was never crippled, stockpiles where built up, and we responded fast": see NZ.

6000 - 24,000 is "Pandemic response team was crippled, but CDC and other agencies proactively responded back in February to this issue".

60,000 - 240,000 is "successfully mitigated it with real, actual wartime levels of effort, starting in March" death rate territory.

600,000 - 2,400,000 is "failed mitigation, reaches herd immunity, but curve was spread out so health care system handled it" territory.

6,000,000 - 24,000,000 is "failed mitigation, health care system collapses" territory.

Talking about the "successful, after extreme measures" case and comparing it to other forms of death is, as far as I am considered, dishonest. It understates how bad this situation is, and encourages being complacent.

It is like looking at the number of casualties in WW2 after the nukes where dropped, and implying that the nukes didn't have much impact.

Yep.

Cheap and plentiful tests are the next ray of hope. Then a vaccine or effective proven treatment.

Funny you mention nukes. I had to do an essay on it at uni.

Gets back to my bad, worse, awful example earlier.

Drop nukes. 110-150k die. Hope Japan surrenders

Don't drop nukes 100-200k die per week just in China alone. Hope Japan surrenders.

Invade Japan 500k-1 million Americans die, millions of Japanese die. Force Japan to surrender.

Bad, worse, awful no matter what you pick people gonna die.

There's scenarios where the herd immunity plan is going to look rational and the best of a lot of bad options.
 


Remove ads

Top