As I've come to expect from DRW, their post is only interested in the subject matter in a glancing way — it functions to tee them up for their preferred rant about government data collection, international surveillance etc.

They're a lot like Socialist Alliance in this regard. >
The DRW post argues against contact tracing—notifications on people's phones are enough:

'If a user tests positive for the virus, that information could trigger notifications to be sent to contacts from that user’s phone, informing them to seek a test and quarantine.'
That's a BIG departure from the approach that has brought epidemics under control in China and Australia.

It assumes people will just... do what they're told... based on an anonymous notification they receive on their phone.
I've been critical of the panic about people leaving home for legitimate purposes like exercise, and the punitive policy responses authorised by that panic. But, let's be real, a non-trivial % of contacts need to be followed up with information, support, and reinforcement. >
As I pointed out in my post on confidentiality, if I've had face time with five people this week, and I get a notification saying I need to stay home for 14 days, you'd better believe I'm going to wonder 'which one was it?'

Some people will act on that in unpredictable ways. >
It's pure solutionism to assume that an app, human rights-respecting or not, can replace the human aspect and the epidemic surveillance function of contact tracing. A better app would help people remember who they've had contact with, rather than trying to automate disclosure. >
Right now, it really matters that our state/territory health departments *know* who the contacts are, in order to identify chains and clusters of transmission. That's literally how we identify community transmission events, and that's a critical metric for monitoring success.
You can follow @engagedpractx.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: