Slashdot Mirror
CDC Wants to Track Travelers
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?"
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.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
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.We really need your help
http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
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.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
but if I have to pick between freedom and safety I will usually pick safety then you don't deserve either.
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 . . .
If that means that I sacrifice some of my freedom for the safety of the general public, so be it.
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.
All they seem to have to do anymore is claim something will make us safer and most americans will offer up their Bic lighters to help burn the Constitution. Just how much information about everything we do does the government really need? Several thousand people die in the 9/11 attack and they offer up the constitution on a platter. 20X that many die from the flu every year in this country and there's no out cry. It was tragic but isn't heading down the police state road and making tin foil hats mandatory a bit of an over reaction? This flu may be as bad as claimed but I still remember the swine flu scare in the 70s and SARS just happened. It's important to take these threats seriously but over reaction gives the bad guys in the government more power and threatens to make people suspect the next time around, cry wolf anyone? The threat is real but until it manifests the over reaction can do more harm than good. We've all but been promised it'll happen within the year yet the truth is no one knows if a human strain will show up next month, next year or ten years from now. Can we mantain DEFCON 2 for that long? The irony is over use of antivirals before it hits could leave it immune and kill far more people. Let's not start implanting tracking chips and sending people to leper colonies for a head cold just yet. Wait till there's at least one confirmed human to human transmition before we torch that abused document that protects us when we let it. Give up your privacy rights if you want but bloody well leave mine alone.
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.