To everyone who is pointing out the obvious negatives, why don't you go into govt jobs making these apps/policies and do what you believe is correct/perfect.
I couldn't like this approach of mandatory app lesser, but 'lets not do it because it has potential for abuse' cliche needs to phase out.
You see, india is way bigger than Singapore or many smaller countries that were able to create more privacy friendly apps than this.
And you can find many open source tools/spec as well. Even after all that, the government is going with this?
Also, it's not about the app but past behaviour of the government. It doesn't seem sincere in the slightest. And democracy makes it so you can't change something if the masses doesn't want it and the masses don't care.
And if you want to change masses, remember that many famous people who changed the world were killed or lynched by the mob.
People are not altruistic. If they think something can benefit them somewhat, they will do it but if there are no upsides, only downsides. Why would you do it?
Complaining and making noise is expected in any democracy to sway policy decisions by the executive and legislature. There are going to be lawsuits against this one very soon.
> why don't you go into govt jobs making these apps/policies and do what you believe is correct/perfect.
Because that's not how bureaucracies work.
> but 'lets not do it because it has potential for abuse' cliche needs to phase out.
I can think of many privacy breaches that could have been prevented if people took that approach. If Facebook had actually properly risk assessed their platform in 2012 they would have saved themselves a huge amount of Cambridge Analytica related pain down the line.
Can you think of any product or service that has failed because people properly risk assessed it for abuse? I can't.
"Let's not do it because it has potential for abuse" is the exact reason a government shouldn't do most things.
If they implemented an anonymous and/or privacy protecting system, then sure this wouldn't be a problem. It has some slippery slope potential but as it is it wouldn't stand too likely to grant the government dangerous powers.
They however are not implementing an anonymous or privacy protecting system. The system is supposedly anonymous because it doesn't record a name however it logs the user's phone number, all location data, and any Bluetooth device it detects. This is more than enough information to maintain a more or less complete record of all of the interactions and travel history of the majority of the population.
The app is mandatory and is now required to be included on any phone before it can be sold in India. It is a criminal offence to have a cellular device without the app on it on your person. That is horrifying because all the government needs to do is not roll the decision back after the crisis is over and they have instituted a more or less complete surveillance state.
A crisis is always the excuse for these types of power grabs. In the US it is often something like the "War on Terror", an attempt to stop paedophilia, or an attempt to stop school or inner city violence.
Regardless of whether you agree with a particular policy, the first and foremost question should be "How dangerous would this be if it was abused?" and the second should then be "How much would it take to change this into something that could be abused?". To say that these questions are a cliche or should not be asked is ridiculous as they are one of the only ways that citizens can keep control over their government.
> why don't you go into govt jobs making these apps/policies and do what you believe is correct/perfect.
What is this, the youtube comment section? Nah, terrible take. These systems are being pushed through multiple democracies by governments trading on fear and the false promises of safety.
The argument of "If you can do a better job, why haven't you already?" is an extremely lazy gotcha on all levels. As for the rest of my comment, it is merely commenting on recorded shifts in social democracies with 911 being a highlighted turning point aided by the rise of the digital economy.
No one who actually cares can fight in all the fronts they believe would be worth it. Only those blind to their surroundings can. This is the only cliche here that needs to phase out.
That doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I don't owe you any explanation of what I do or don't do with my life.
> being blind is one thing, and closing your eyes to a complete set of issues and blame the govt is something else.
That doesn't have anything to do with your argument. You basically said "if you don't like it why don't you go fix it". Which basically implies that people should be responsible for fixing the sh*t others do instead of their own, which is completely insane. If you are going to complain about reasonable complaints, give actual arguments. But what you said is just a pervasive form of the "man up (and fix my shit if you don't like it)" of social responsibility debate.
Sorry if you are not actually trying to troll, but it really looks like it to me.
To everyone who is pointing out the obvious negatives, why don't you go into govt jobs making these apps/policies and do what you believe is correct/perfect.
I couldn't like this approach of mandatory app lesser, but 'lets not do it because it has potential for abuse' cliche needs to phase out.