Programmers are not necessarily software engineers, so the question is dumb. Ask whether software is an engineering discipline and the answer is that yes it is. Not every software project is a software engineering project. Just like doing maintenance on your lawnmower doesn't make you a mechanical engineer.
6,000 pages is ridiculous, how is anybody supposed to fully understand and agree to that. It is just a way hide important detail in a ocean of boredom.
Took years to even negotiate, but they want congress to just rubber stamp it. How about this... as soon as every congressman is able to pass a comprehensive test detailing the bills text, then they can be allowed to vote on this.
The agreement merely asks countries to "recognise" [sic] and "acknowledge" the importance of the public domain. This contrasts with the provisions on copyright and patents, which demand compliance in many instances, including the following example on "Criminal Procedures and Penalties" (Art. 18.77):
That hits the nail on the head... All the parts that screw people over are iron clad, specified to the extreme while all the consumer, labor, environmental protections are all fluffy piles of bull shit wrapped in language you could drive a truck full of slaves through to their coal fired baby seal killing factory.
The mission of this aircraft is idiotic. If we use this thing to bomb Russia or China we get nuclear war. Period. As such, the mission of any long range stealth bomber's can be achieved equally well by our simply nuking ourselves. Since we already can do that now, let's cut the USAF budget by $60B and declare "Mission Accomplished".
That is probably the best point made about the cost. The question shouldn't be about particular capabilities, but having enough capability to act as a deterrent. Is there a risk that our ICBMs and cruise missiles wouldn't make it through and someone would be willing to bet the world on it? Then yes we need these bombers. But is that a real risk? You are probably correct, I don't know for sure either way.
But I'd much rather see a larger military with more soldiers who can more flexibly respond to various needs such as peace keeping, homeland defense, disaster recovery. A bomber can do just a few things, but for the price of one of these bombers you could have a thousand soldiers at the ready for four years. For the price of a hundred bombers you could have an extra 2000 soldiers stationed in each of the 50 states. Or an extra 20,000 part time national guard soldiers.
Remember when you saved $75 by buying a computer online... and when it arrived it had 5 bad pixels on the screen? Yes, and then came the awkward haggling about getting a replacement and who would pay shipping, etc. If you had just gone to a reputable dealer it would have been simpler and maybe worth the $75.
Actually I remember a pretty quick transition from buying computers in person in a store to buying pretty much everything from Dell over the phone or online where they would ship you a computer for a lot more than $75 cheaper sometimes. And then I also remember Apple opening stores within a store in Best Buys, starting to do direct sales and then opening their own Apple stores.
Without state level protectionism and mandates in place for car dealerships then there will undoubtedly be similar types of transitions in the car market, maybe several iterations. In-person sales will still be part of the mix, just as they still are now.
I realize this sounds weird and paranoid, but from years of experience on Slashdot, I have gotten the strong impression that there is some kind of pro-nuclear lobbying going on on this site. Articles with a pro-nuclear tone, well formulated posts critical of nuclear energy being modded down rather insistently... But of course there is the possibility that its the Slashdot crowd itself who is on average very pro-nuclear, giving this kind of impression.
I am pro-nuclear and I go out of my way to use my mod points whenever I get them to mod down anti-nuclear posts. It isn't a conspiracy I just think the anti-nuclear crowd are dangerous fools and idiot technophobes that are endangering everyone on the planet and unless you are offering a real alternative then you are part of the problem.
If source code is on a website, it's not "mass-distributed in binary form." I assume that by "binary form", Mr. Perens meant a form other than "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" (GPLv3). And if source code is specifically marked as experimental, it's not "mass-distributed [...] for use by RF-naïve users."
If that is the case, then it is a fundamental disagreement. It shouldn't be made illegal to "mass-distribute" either uncertified binaries or uncertified source code of firmware for wifi routers. Claiming it is certified should be the regulatory issue. And on the use side, it should be the operator that incurs any liability for operating uncertified firmware or an uncertified device that is operating outside of defined parameters.
Why would you not want enterprises to utilize better software for their Wi-Fi infrastructure?
Open source simply must be permitted to still exist and be freely used in place of what comes with the equipment. I understand the FCC position, and would even accept a closed source blob that directly controls the radio interface, but there is a vast set of other tools that are used in enterprise environments outside of the core radio interface. These are more frequently patched for features and security enhancements than what you can get from the manufacturer.
A no Open Source position hurts everyone - enterprise environments included.
I didn't say that enterprises shouldn't use open source. Actually, I think there is a good reason to require all source code for wifi and other radio devices be publicly available for inspection as open source. Some could have open source licenses while others could have proprietary licenses.
Just that instead of an outright FCC ban on the use of uncertified firmware, it should simply be made clear that the firmware isn't certified, so that anyone using the software is incurring some risk that the software may not be compliant. Particular versions of open source firmware could be still be certified while other development versions would be experimental.
My main point about Bruce Parens comments is that "mass-distributed" could simply mean putting a link to a source code repository on a website, so requiring that all such code be certified would undermine the whole point of open source. I think Bruce was intending the opposite.
Anything with a link on a website someplace will be considered "mass-distributed" for regulatory purposes. So in effect that would mean that only peer to peer sharing of open source code would be allowed which undermines the whole point of open source.
I think "commercially distributed" might cover it, so that people can't sell software or hardware without certification. But basically I think some simple disclaimer that comes along with the code that indicates that the code is intended for experimental use or research and not for widespread deployment in a production setting. That should allow individuals to utilize the open source code while dissuading enterprise use. But "mass-distributed" is the wrong wording.
Yes, my point about cameras was that it would be better to judge capabilities based on cameras alone because our roads are designed to work with the human eye. And cameras have pretty much the same capabilities as the human eye, so sensors aren't the issue.
As for motivation, Googlers are all pretty much technologists and want to make the world a better place through technology. There are higher margin less speculative ways to make money. If you want to look at the money, I think the effects of autonomous vehicles would be to enable greater economic growth through productivity and efficiency gains. And will save lives, which itself is a macro economic benefit because lives lost, especially in their prime, is an economic loss as well. Really there are more economic winners than losers in a world with autonomous vehicles.
Fucking google car's sensors can't see in the dark or in the rain....
Which Google sensor" can't see in the rain? You are saying that radar, and sonar and LIDAR aren't able to see in the dark? I've used all three with full success in darkness. Please stop talking out of your ass. If you think Google's driverless cars use a single sensor then why are you wasting peoples time here?
I think Google cars should be able to work on just the cameras when needed. And cameras are at least as good as the human eye. LIDAR, etc should be considered as nice to haves.
"Education" is what rich people do to feel entitled to their wealth. They work hard, study hard for years and years and then feel like they have achieved success on a level playing field. Oh and they let in a few other token poor people based on "merit" who can then keep all the other poor people in line by telling them their is a "path to success". Formalized education has become a tool of oppression.
The one mission I think could be really excellent would be an atmospheric probe of Venus that could float around the upper atmosphere where it is at a pressure nearly equivalent to earth. So far most probes haven't lasted very long, so it would be an engineering challenge with the potential to send back some really amazing images from the cloud layer.
And forget mars, venus is the most promising place in the Solar System for its terraforming and habitability potential, *all you need to do* is remove enough Carbon from the atmosphere and you end up with plenty of oxygen. An airship could explore, take samples and test a CO2 converter. Heck just throw a plant on there and see if you can keep it alive.
They are in fact claiming that, its just that the lie. They claim terrorism is different therefore give them what they want, when they get what they want they claim its just crime and their new powers are constitutional when they aren't. You start arguing that its unconstitutional and shouldn't be used as a tool against crime, and back to "But Terrorists!" implying the difference. The logical fallacy isn't yours, its the governments.
Sure, there are mixed messages. And in different cases there are claims being made by government agents that are completely contradictory. I was highlighting the arguments that are of greatest concern to me. It isn't of concern to me when the government occasionally exercises power in ways that exceed their authority. That is necessity. Like the police (or anyone) kicking down a door without a warrant if they think a kidnapped child is inside. But kicking down one door is different than going house to house and kicking down every door. Which is the equivalent of the mass surveillance approach now.
This is an equivocation fallacy. The arguement to do this for terrorism is because its not a crime, but an act of war, the terrorists aren't merely criminals, but foreign combatants.
The government isn't claiming merely the necessity for mass surveillance in the face of imminent danger from terrorists, they are claiming a right to perform mass surveillance as a function of law and the ability to use evidence gained from the fruit of mass surveillance to prosecute criminal cases against people conspiring with terrorists. Either mass surveillance is constitutional as a tool against crime or it isn't. There is no false argument there. Evidence gained through mass surveillance and the fruit of mass surveillance should be inadmissible in ANY criminal cases.
Either treat surveillance without a warrant as something that is inadmissible in court in all cases or forget the 4th amendment.
The cult of management says that a good manager can manage anything -- and doesn't even have to understand the product. So the top manager of a potato chip company can move in and run a computer chip company.
Or the top manager of a computer company can reform the education system.
For a well established company where a manager is there to just keep things going the way they are going, then the warm body manager mentality is probably a correct assessment. In that case, management doesn't need to know the product, they just keep things going the way they are going. There are many such niche products where there is pretty much one way of doing things and you don't need to change what you are doing. Of course then managers tend to assess performance based on irrelevant things since they don't know what is relevant. Best to simply give everyone the same cost of living increases at that point and only penalize glaringly bad performance.
If you need process improvement, innovation, a company that can adapt to a changing market conditions then you need everyone from the top down to understand the products they are making and the people they are selling to and ignorance by anyone in that chain is a serious weakness.
Worse. It will be seen as a loophole in the law that only terrorists can be found out by indiscriminate mass surveillance. If terrorists, then why not... (fill in the blank terrible crime here). Then the law will be expanded to say that any felony crime inadvertently uncovered during mass surveillance is fair game.
On the one hand, they are right... If you can be allowed to search without a warrant for terrorists then why not other criminals? If you find out someone went on a murderous rampage for personal reasons are you any less ethically obligated to try and stop them than if they have terrorist motives? No if it is constitutional, then you can't simply apply the standard to certain crimes.
The answer is that government shouldn't be allowed to violate the constitution and seizing business records without a warrant is a clear violation of the 4th amendment... that applies to terrorism cases and everything else.
If someones job is to paint unpainted widgets in bin A and paint them and put them in bin B, that we can pretty accurately measure their productivity by determine how many widgets are in bin B each day and comparing them with others who do the same work, or can we? What about the defect rate?
I've seen this work out (or not) first hand. You can't just pay (or evaluate performance) on one metric. But usually you can figure out some formula that can measure performance. Lines of code is never the metric in software (actually it is the opposite as software that has more lines per unit of functionality is slower). That is like paying your house builder based on the number of nails they hammer or the amount of wood they use. Neither is the number of unique graphics generated in graphic design a good metric, since generating more of anything of lower quality is going to make for dissatisfied customers as you are forcing them to sift through all the junk. For anything the trick is making sure there are checks in place to ensure quality without increasing cost substantially. You have to know your product and what makes for a quality product and tailor your production process to that. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but micromanaging merely one part of the entire process while neglecting other parts usually leads to poor outcomes.
So we should abandon aspirations towards human rights because Saudi Arabia or North Korea don't play along?
In the case of privacy from government seizure of private records the United States of America itself isn't even following its own Constitution and there is no reason to believe that other "Western" countries are either. So, why should anyone believe that anyone would follow an aspirational international treaty which undoubtedly would give for itself numerous ways to get around it?
Take for instance existing International Law agreed to in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights":
"Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
While I applaud the sentiment, I don't think any government thinks that it is being "arbitrary" when it conducts mass surveillance or wholesale spying. They say to themselves and their colleagues that they have very good reasons for doing what they do otherwise they wouldn't do it.
I would have no reason to think that any new treaty would be any more effective or have any fewer ways around it. Governments will always choose to carve out security exemptions at the very least which undermines the whole point.
The US Bill of Rights and the 4th amendment is(was) so special in that it isn't aspirational, but rather spells out the requirements and procedure for violating the right to privacy in fairly specific detail. And even then you see that it hasn't survived the test of time unbroken. I can't think of any other wording that would better survive even the best intentions of those tasked with our security.
P.S. likely your mobile phone and maybe even your cable setup has been using IPv6 addresses for a few years now. They are specified and necessary in related standards.
This was the insightful part of your comment. So pretty much everyone is using IPv6 at least on mobile devices... which is pretty much everyone. It is just on older wired networks where you see IPv4 addresses only.
It will be somewhat important to keep the cost of web hosting/DNS low to make sure that registrars are supporting IPv6 only DNS registrations. All the relevant technology and infrastructure should be in place though. More like making sure that web forms on registrars websites accept IPv6 registrations and such.
Of course, this is important for individual diagnosis. But it's the longer term implications on the epidemiology side that are absolutely huge.
This seems to me to be the real benefit of these types of tests. I would hope that CDC, NIH in conjunction with other agencies would begin funding these types of tests on a randomized basis so they could see how viruses are spreading through the population and finding out how viral infections are interacting with other diseases and treatments. The data collection effort would be well worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Programmers are not necessarily software engineers, so the question is dumb. Ask whether software is an engineering discipline and the answer is that yes it is. Not every software project is a software engineering project. Just like doing maintenance on your lawnmower doesn't make you a mechanical engineer.
6,000 pages is ridiculous, how is anybody supposed to fully understand and agree to that. It is just a way hide important detail in a ocean of boredom.
Took years to even negotiate, but they want congress to just rubber stamp it. How about this... as soon as every congressman is able to pass a comprehensive test detailing the bills text, then they can be allowed to vote on this.
Take a gander through all the foreign nationals and governments that have laundered thinly veiled bribes through the Clinton Foundation.
The agreement merely asks countries to "recognise" [sic] and "acknowledge" the importance of the public domain. This contrasts with the provisions on copyright and patents, which demand compliance in many instances, including the following example on "Criminal Procedures and Penalties" (Art. 18.77):
That hits the nail on the head... All the parts that screw people over are iron clad, specified to the extreme while all the consumer, labor, environmental protections are all fluffy piles of bull shit wrapped in language you could drive a truck full of slaves through to their coal fired baby seal killing factory.
The mission of this aircraft is idiotic. If we use this thing to bomb Russia or China we get nuclear war. Period. As such, the mission of any long range stealth bomber's can be achieved equally well by our simply nuking ourselves. Since we already can do that now, let's cut the USAF budget by $60B and declare "Mission Accomplished".
That is probably the best point made about the cost. The question shouldn't be about particular capabilities, but having enough capability to act as a deterrent. Is there a risk that our ICBMs and cruise missiles wouldn't make it through and someone would be willing to bet the world on it? Then yes we need these bombers. But is that a real risk? You are probably correct, I don't know for sure either way.
But I'd much rather see a larger military with more soldiers who can more flexibly respond to various needs such as peace keeping, homeland defense, disaster recovery. A bomber can do just a few things, but for the price of one of these bombers you could have a thousand soldiers at the ready for four years. For the price of a hundred bombers you could have an extra 2000 soldiers stationed in each of the 50 states. Or an extra 20,000 part time national guard soldiers.
Remember when you saved $75 by buying a computer online ... and when it arrived it had 5 bad pixels on the screen? Yes, and then came the awkward haggling about getting a replacement and who would pay shipping, etc. If you had just gone to a reputable dealer it would have been simpler and maybe worth the $75.
Actually I remember a pretty quick transition from buying computers in person in a store to buying pretty much everything from Dell over the phone or online where they would ship you a computer for a lot more than $75 cheaper sometimes. And then I also remember Apple opening stores within a store in Best Buys, starting to do direct sales and then opening their own Apple stores.
Without state level protectionism and mandates in place for car dealerships then there will undoubtedly be similar types of transitions in the car market, maybe several iterations. In-person sales will still be part of the mix, just as they still are now.
I realize this sounds weird and paranoid, but from years of experience on Slashdot, I have gotten the strong impression that there is some kind of pro-nuclear lobbying going on on this site. Articles with a pro-nuclear tone, well formulated posts critical of nuclear energy being modded down rather insistently...
But of course there is the possibility that its the Slashdot crowd itself who is on average very pro-nuclear, giving this kind of impression.
I am pro-nuclear and I go out of my way to use my mod points whenever I get them to mod down anti-nuclear posts. It isn't a conspiracy I just think the anti-nuclear crowd are dangerous fools and idiot technophobes that are endangering everyone on the planet and unless you are offering a real alternative then you are part of the problem.
What if there is no profit?
If source code is on a website, it's not "mass-distributed in binary form." I assume that by "binary form", Mr. Perens meant a form other than "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" (GPLv3). And if source code is specifically marked as experimental, it's not "mass-distributed [...] for use by RF-naïve users."
If that is the case, then it is a fundamental disagreement. It shouldn't be made illegal to "mass-distribute" either uncertified binaries or uncertified source code of firmware for wifi routers. Claiming it is certified should be the regulatory issue. And on the use side, it should be the operator that incurs any liability for operating uncertified firmware or an uncertified device that is operating outside of defined parameters.
Why would you not want enterprises to utilize better software for their Wi-Fi infrastructure?
Open source simply must be permitted to still exist and be freely used in place of what comes with the equipment. I understand the FCC position, and would even accept a closed source blob that directly controls the radio interface, but there is a vast set of other tools that are used in enterprise environments outside of the core radio interface. These are more frequently patched for features and security enhancements than what you can get from the manufacturer.
A no Open Source position hurts everyone - enterprise environments included.
I didn't say that enterprises shouldn't use open source. Actually, I think there is a good reason to require all source code for wifi and other radio devices be publicly available for inspection as open source. Some could have open source licenses while others could have proprietary licenses.
Just that instead of an outright FCC ban on the use of uncertified firmware, it should simply be made clear that the firmware isn't certified, so that anyone using the software is incurring some risk that the software may not be compliant. Particular versions of open source firmware could be still be certified while other development versions would be experimental.
My main point about Bruce Parens comments is that "mass-distributed" could simply mean putting a link to a source code repository on a website, so requiring that all such code be certified would undermine the whole point of open source. I think Bruce was intending the opposite.
Anything with a link on a website someplace will be considered "mass-distributed" for regulatory purposes. So in effect that would mean that only peer to peer sharing of open source code would be allowed which undermines the whole point of open source.
I think "commercially distributed" might cover it, so that people can't sell software or hardware without certification. But basically I think some simple disclaimer that comes along with the code that indicates that the code is intended for experimental use or research and not for widespread deployment in a production setting. That should allow individuals to utilize the open source code while dissuading enterprise use. But "mass-distributed" is the wrong wording.
Among competing hypotheses, the one with Aliens should be selected.
Yes, my point about cameras was that it would be better to judge capabilities based on cameras alone because our roads are designed to work with the human eye. And cameras have pretty much the same capabilities as the human eye, so sensors aren't the issue.
As for motivation, Googlers are all pretty much technologists and want to make the world a better place through technology. There are higher margin less speculative ways to make money. If you want to look at the money, I think the effects of autonomous vehicles would be to enable greater economic growth through productivity and efficiency gains. And will save lives, which itself is a macro economic benefit because lives lost, especially in their prime, is an economic loss as well. Really there are more economic winners than losers in a world with autonomous vehicles.
Fucking google car's sensors can't see in the dark or in the rain....
Which Google sensor" can't see in the rain? You are saying that radar, and sonar and LIDAR aren't able to see in the dark? I've used all three with full success in darkness. Please stop talking out of your ass. If you think Google's driverless cars use a single sensor then why are you wasting peoples time here?
I think Google cars should be able to work on just the cameras when needed. And cameras are at least as good as the human eye. LIDAR, etc should be considered as nice to haves.
"Education" is what rich people do to feel entitled to their wealth. They work hard, study hard for years and years and then feel like they have achieved success on a level playing field. Oh and they let in a few other token poor people based on "merit" who can then keep all the other poor people in line by telling them their is a "path to success". Formalized education has become a tool of oppression.
We are having trouble removing it from Earth's, and we have far less.
The Earth used to have a lot more carbon in the atmosphere until all these pesky living things started photosynthesizing.
The one mission I think could be really excellent would be an atmospheric probe of Venus that could float around the upper atmosphere where it is at a pressure nearly equivalent to earth. So far most probes haven't lasted very long, so it would be an engineering challenge with the potential to send back some really amazing images from the cloud layer. And forget mars, venus is the most promising place in the Solar System for its terraforming and habitability potential, *all you need to do* is remove enough Carbon from the atmosphere and you end up with plenty of oxygen. An airship could explore, take samples and test a CO2 converter. Heck just throw a plant on there and see if you can keep it alive.
They are in fact claiming that, its just that the lie. They claim terrorism is different therefore give them what they want, when they get what they want they claim its just crime and their new powers are constitutional when they aren't. You start arguing that its unconstitutional and shouldn't be used as a tool against crime, and back to "But Terrorists!" implying the difference. The logical fallacy isn't yours, its the governments.
Sure, there are mixed messages. And in different cases there are claims being made by government agents that are completely contradictory. I was highlighting the arguments that are of greatest concern to me. It isn't of concern to me when the government occasionally exercises power in ways that exceed their authority. That is necessity. Like the police (or anyone) kicking down a door without a warrant if they think a kidnapped child is inside. But kicking down one door is different than going house to house and kicking down every door. Which is the equivalent of the mass surveillance approach now.
This is an equivocation fallacy. The arguement to do this for terrorism is because its not a crime, but an act of war, the terrorists aren't merely criminals, but foreign combatants.
The government isn't claiming merely the necessity for mass surveillance in the face of imminent danger from terrorists, they are claiming a right to perform mass surveillance as a function of law and the ability to use evidence gained from the fruit of mass surveillance to prosecute criminal cases against people conspiring with terrorists. Either mass surveillance is constitutional as a tool against crime or it isn't. There is no false argument there. Evidence gained through mass surveillance and the fruit of mass surveillance should be inadmissible in ANY criminal cases.
Either treat surveillance without a warrant as something that is inadmissible in court in all cases or forget the 4th amendment.
The cult of management says that a good manager can manage anything -- and doesn't even have to understand the product. So the top manager of a potato chip company can move in and run a computer chip company.
Or the top manager of a computer company can reform the education system.
For a well established company where a manager is there to just keep things going the way they are going, then the warm body manager mentality is probably a correct assessment. In that case, management doesn't need to know the product, they just keep things going the way they are going. There are many such niche products where there is pretty much one way of doing things and you don't need to change what you are doing. Of course then managers tend to assess performance based on irrelevant things since they don't know what is relevant. Best to simply give everyone the same cost of living increases at that point and only penalize glaringly bad performance.
If you need process improvement, innovation, a company that can adapt to a changing market conditions then you need everyone from the top down to understand the products they are making and the people they are selling to and ignorance by anyone in that chain is a serious weakness.
Worse. It will be seen as a loophole in the law that only terrorists can be found out by indiscriminate mass surveillance. If terrorists, then why not... (fill in the blank terrible crime here). Then the law will be expanded to say that any felony crime inadvertently uncovered during mass surveillance is fair game.
On the one hand, they are right... If you can be allowed to search without a warrant for terrorists then why not other criminals? If you find out someone went on a murderous rampage for personal reasons are you any less ethically obligated to try and stop them than if they have terrorist motives? No if it is constitutional, then you can't simply apply the standard to certain crimes.
The answer is that government shouldn't be allowed to violate the constitution and seizing business records without a warrant is a clear violation of the 4th amendment... that applies to terrorism cases and everything else.
If someones job is to paint unpainted widgets in bin A and paint them and put them in bin B, that we can pretty accurately measure their productivity by determine how many widgets are in bin B each day and comparing them with others who do the same work, or can we? What about the defect rate?
I've seen this work out (or not) first hand. You can't just pay (or evaluate performance) on one metric. But usually you can figure out some formula that can measure performance. Lines of code is never the metric in software (actually it is the opposite as software that has more lines per unit of functionality is slower). That is like paying your house builder based on the number of nails they hammer or the amount of wood they use. Neither is the number of unique graphics generated in graphic design a good metric, since generating more of anything of lower quality is going to make for dissatisfied customers as you are forcing them to sift through all the junk. For anything the trick is making sure there are checks in place to ensure quality without increasing cost substantially. You have to know your product and what makes for a quality product and tailor your production process to that. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but micromanaging merely one part of the entire process while neglecting other parts usually leads to poor outcomes.
So we should abandon aspirations towards human rights because Saudi Arabia or North Korea don't play along?
In the case of privacy from government seizure of private records the United States of America itself isn't even following its own Constitution and there is no reason to believe that other "Western" countries are either. So, why should anyone believe that anyone would follow an aspirational international treaty which undoubtedly would give for itself numerous ways to get around it?
Take for instance existing International Law agreed to in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights":
"Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
While I applaud the sentiment, I don't think any government thinks that it is being "arbitrary" when it conducts mass surveillance or wholesale spying. They say to themselves and their colleagues that they have very good reasons for doing what they do otherwise they wouldn't do it.
I would have no reason to think that any new treaty would be any more effective or have any fewer ways around it. Governments will always choose to carve out security exemptions at the very least which undermines the whole point.
The US Bill of Rights and the 4th amendment is(was) so special in that it isn't aspirational, but rather spells out the requirements and procedure for violating the right to privacy in fairly specific detail. And even then you see that it hasn't survived the test of time unbroken. I can't think of any other wording that would better survive even the best intentions of those tasked with our security.
P.S. likely your mobile phone and maybe even your cable setup has been using IPv6 addresses for a few years now. They are specified and necessary in related standards.
This was the insightful part of your comment. So pretty much everyone is using IPv6 at least on mobile devices... which is pretty much everyone. It is just on older wired networks where you see IPv4 addresses only.
It will be somewhat important to keep the cost of web hosting/DNS low to make sure that registrars are supporting IPv6 only DNS registrations. All the relevant technology and infrastructure should be in place though. More like making sure that web forms on registrars websites accept IPv6 registrations and such.
Of course, this is important for individual diagnosis. But it's the longer term implications on the epidemiology side that are absolutely huge.
This seems to me to be the real benefit of these types of tests. I would hope that CDC, NIH in conjunction with other agencies would begin funding these types of tests on a randomized basis so they could see how viruses are spreading through the population and finding out how viral infections are interacting with other diseases and treatments. The data collection effort would be well worth it.
The other test that has a similar implication was the one announced back in June This blood test can tell you every virus you’ve ever had
Come up with a statistically meaningful sampling. Say 10,000 kits per 100,000 patients and just start collecting data.