| | |
|
BaiksungYangFirstPaper 5 - 12 May 2022 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | |
| |
<
< | It seems to me that the best route to improvement is to begin by editing hard to create space for more ideas. What is presently being said in 958 words can be said in 500. Every word not actually pulling weight should go. After the slack words are gone, each sentence should be rewritten to use fewer words and simpler grammar. | >
> | Useful work was done in improving the essay. The international focus helped, in one sense. But the limitation to zero-covid countries failed to show the most important conclusion: regardless of public health strategy, no country, anywhere, got any sustained benefit from smartassphone-based tracing. The disease outran the technology everywhere. So there was no benefit and only deadweight loss through privacy invasion. I pointed out to you that a de facto national requirement that people carry smartassphones ensures that such misadventures will happen. You didn't respond to the idea, which of course would be heresy in South Korea, as it would equally be heresy to give everyone a smartassphone in DPRK. | | | | |
<
< | In the space you have made, you can then actually consider more than just South Korea. "Striking a balance" among objectives such as those you describe depends on many aspects (the society's material wealth, its size, population density, degree of federalism, and so on. Cultural attitudes towards surveillance and autocratic government are also relevant.
But no one actually suppressed Covid-19 by technological means. Even the original, less communicable, forms of the virus outran the utility to contact tracing in any form. By the time societies like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan that had believed in the utility of such measures met Delta and Omicron, they changed their minds. So it might be worth asking whether "balance" was actually the right goal after all. Perhaps just saying no and refusing to carry a smartassphone during the epidemic was actually the correct policy. Worked for me. | >
> | Your introduction and conclusion were adroitly edited to make the minimum adjustment consistent with the point that the tech didn't work for its ostensible purpose. We knew that it would be bad to allow the State to become perfectly despotic before (as the ever-present references to George Orwell remind us). Unless there is no new lesson at all here, which seems contrary to your interest in the subject, what is that new learning? | | |
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |