Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

Working Together Is What Humans Are Built to Do: Social Trust Is Key to Stemming the Coronavirus Crisis – The New Yorker

Subscribers to The Climate Crisis newsletter received this piece in their in-boxes. Sign up to receive future installments.

The coronavirus pandemic is now so sprawling that it has revealed the souls of tens of thousands of individuals, from remarkably kind nurses to online sellers seeking to corner the market for hand sanitizers (until finally deciding to donate them). One saga that we should not soon forget involves Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky. On March 16th, out of an abundance of caution, he said, he got an early test. For a week, while waiting for the results, he kept circulating in public, continuing his work on Capitol Hill (where he lambasted and then voted against a bill that would have offered free tests to all Americans), and even working out in the Senate gym and swimming in the Senate pool. The test results came back positive, and Paul then went into self-quarantine.

The reason to focus on this story is not to suggest that Paul is a selfish jerk; he is a medical doctor, for heavens sake. Its because he is the foremost representative of libertarian philosophy in our nations Capitol, and that philosophy has helped produce the world we live in: one in which we struggle to solve both the coronavirus pandemic and the larger climate crisis. Last week, I tried to show how those crises were linked through the variable of time; this week, its social trust thats the issue.

Ayn Rand and her novelsone of which, Atlas Shrugged, was once, according to a survey for the Library of Congress, the second-most influential book in the country helped get this ball rolling. Rands novels are worth thinking about, because theyve shaped the thinking of American leaders since the Reagan era, when Rands acolyte Alan Greenspan became the most powerful economic figure on the planet. This view of the worldthat government is the problem, that we should free individuals and corporations from its clutcheshas made it all but impossible to address global warming. The Koch brothers, for instance, came directly from this milieu; it was after the late David Koch failed in his Vice-Presidential bid on the Libertarian Party ticket, in 1980, that he and his older brother Charles became two of the G.O.P.s biggest funders. Since they were among Americas biggest oil and gas barons, it was no wonder that they opposed restrictions on the fossil-fuel industry, but it wasnt just self-interest: the government action necessary to tackle climate change is incompatible with their belief system. The right-wing syllogism became, I think, the following:

Markets solve all problems.Markets arent solving global warming.Q.E.D.: Global warming is not a problem.

Thats not logical, but it is comforting if youve committed to the basic idea that, as Ronald Reagan once put it, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are Im from the government and Im here to help. But, of course, thats nowhere near the scariest sentence. Try: The hillside behind town is on fire. The subway system is flooded. Your test came back positive. There are no ventilators.

Old impulses die hard. Donald Trumpwho once described himself as a fan of Rands and her book The Fountainhead because it relates to business (and) beauty (and) life and inner emotions. That book relates to... everythinghas been using the pandemic to, among other things, drastically relax what environmental laws remain. Meanwhile, his economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNBC, I just think the private sector is going to solve this disease. As Charlie Baker, the governor of Massachusetts, said, when informed of Trumps desire to pack churches on Easter, Yeah. No. In fact, the countries dealing best with the coronavirus are precisely those with high levels of social trust: South Korea, for instance, where a comprehensive national health system made sure that no one had to worry about getting a test or paying for treatment. Or the Scandinavian nations, which a United Nations report released on March 20th said are in the best position to deal with such crises. Nations with higher levels of social trust and connections are more resilient in the face of natural disasters and economic crises, it concluded, because fixing rather than fighting becomes the order of the day. Its probably no accident that, in many ways, the Nordic nations also lead the climate fight, or that South Koreas ruling party proposed a sweeping Green New Deal to confront the economic slump that the virus left behind. Working together is what humans are actually built to do.

The fossil-fuel-divestment movement has been one of the most productive fronts in the fight against climate change for nearly a decade, growing into the largest campaign of its kind, with endowments and portfolios worth twelve trillion dollars pledging to sell their fossil-fuel stock. But some of this countrys richest universities, including Yale and Harvard, have declined to join, despite votes showing students and faculty overwhelmingly in favor of divestment. So some Harvard students and alumni started a group called Harvard Forward, which, with a petition drive, managed to get five climate-focussed candidates on the ballot in the universitys Board of Overseers elections, which alumni would have been able to vote in beginning this week. (Harvard announced on Tuesday that, because of the coronavirus, it would postpone the balloting until midsummer.) One of them is Thea Sebastian, who graduated from the college in 2008 and the law school in 2016, and is the policy counsel for an N.G.O. called the Civil Rights Corps, where she coordinates nationwide strategies to address race-based and wealth-based injustices in our criminal-legal system.

Harvard is filled with scholars studying the climate crisis. Why do you think the administration has been so unwilling to follow institutions around the world and divest from fossil fuels?

Harvard has been an incredible leader on many issues, taking difficult stances that challenged accepted norms. Take, for example, our leadership on affirmative action. Take our stance on Dont Ask, Dont Tell.

Where our endowment is concerned, we havent shown this same courage. We only divested from apartheid after the moment had passed. And on climate change, were poised to do the same.

In my view, our reticence stems from a belief that investments and values are separable. If were doing good research and going carbon-neutral, we can make money however we want. Its the same bifurcationa line between profit and purposethat describes much of our economy.

The thing is, this bifurcation doesnt hold. Our investments are a crucial instrument of our values. Thats true both at Harvard and far, far beyond. We wont fix climate changeor solve structural inequitieswithout building an economy where companies act and invest responsibly. I want Harvard to lead this charge. And, in my view, that starts with divestment.

Much of your work is on civil rights and structural inequality. Harvard is as close to the center of the establishment as its possible to get. Can it really play a role in dismantling systems it helped build?

Visit link:
Working Together Is What Humans Are Built to Do: Social Trust Is Key to Stemming the Coronavirus Crisis - The New Yorker

Coronavirus Gives the Illiberal Right Fever Dreams of Power – Reason

"In this time of global pandemic," Harvard law professor and anti-liberal vanguardist Adrian Vermeule writes in the third paragraph of a much-discussed new Atlantic essay, "it has become clear that a just governing order must have ample power to cope with large-scale crises of public health and well-beingreading 'health' in many senses, not only literal and physical but also metaphorical and social." This aggrandizement of executive power, Vermeule posited, should be constitutionally lubrciated by "anilliberal legalismthat is not 'conservative' at all, insofar as standard conservatism is content to play defensively within the procedural rules of the liberal order."

Italicsand direct warninghis.

As viral fate would have it, Vermeule's philo-Falangist manifesto appeared just one day after the global poster-child for aspirationally illiberal conservatism, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbn, was gifted by a parliament he already dominates the power to rule by decree, suspend elections indefinitely, and imprison journalists for up to five years for publishing fake news about the coronavirus.

Vermeule's vision of "ensur[ing] that the ruler has the power needed to rule well" was thus effectuated by the world leader who most embodies the new nationalism that's gaining steam on the intellectual right, in the United States and elsewhere. "You are thinkers, but we are doers," Orbn told a rapt audience two months ago at the National Conservatism Conference in Rome, where conservative intellectuals such as Rod Dreher and Yoram Hazony rubbed elbows with continental nationalists such as Marion Marechal. "Politics is about making decisions, gaining and keeping the trust of the nation, and getting the power and keeping the power."

Orbn, like Vermeuele and other American integralists, is saying the loud part loud. "Liberal democracyis over," he proclaimed in Rome, while swatting around softball how-do-you-do-it questions from former American Enterprise Institute president and Reagan administration official Chris DeMuth. "We need something new. We can call it illiberal, we can call it post-liberal, you can call it Christian democratic, whatever, but we need something new, because on that [former] basis we cannot provide good governance for the people. So we developed a new theory and a new approach: that is Christian democracy. And instead of liberal freedom we use Christian liberty."

The "liberalism" that this new right is fighting is not limited to woke progressivism, fond though they may be of detecting "cultural Marxists" in every bureaucracy, newspaper, and university. No, they mean very directly to smote "classical liberals" as well. Just as the rising left-populists of the Jeremy Corbyn or Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.) type despise "neoliberals," their equally rising right-wing counterparts condemn the market-fundamentalist and hyper-individualist shibboleths that for too long (in their view) held sway in the democratic West.

"The Court's jurisprudence on free speech, abortion, sexual liberties, and related matters will prove vulnerable under a regime of common-good constitutionalism," muses Vermeule, before shifting to a more pronounced Bane-like tone. "Theclaim, from the notorious joint opinion inPlanned Parenthood v. Casey, that each individual may 'define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life' should be not only rejected but stamped as abominable, beyond the realm of the acceptable forever after. So too should the libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideologythat government is forbidden to judge the quality and moral worth of public speech, that 'one man's vulgarity is another's lyric,'and so onfall under the ax. Libertarian conceptions of property rights and economic rights will also have to go."

At some point it becomes wise to take self-declared enemies of liberalism at their word. More still when real-life politicians start acting out those power fantasies.

Sure enough, there has been no shortage this week of western news organizations sounding the alarm bell at right-wing nationalists exercising heightened powers to combat COVID-19 worldwide: Orbn in Hungary, Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, Aleksandar Vui in Serbia, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines. Usually these pieces come with observation that many of these leaders maintain close relationships with President Donald Trump.

But this is where the conventional narrative about creeping global corona-fascism begins to founder. Because do you know who else gets the Friend of Trump treatment about COVID-19 policy? Politicians, at here and abroad, who take the opposite approach to coronavirus crackdowns.

"In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, Trump's Close Ally, Dangerously Downplays the Coronavirus Risk," goes theNew Yorker headline this week. "How 2 Trump-loving governors are struggling amid the coronavirus crisis," runs today's offering at CNN. There are generally no such dot-connecting ideological/partisan exercises when the laissez-faire governmental responses come from populist lefties, as in Nicragua, Mexico, and (until recently) New York City.

Meanwhile, a whole commentary cottage industry has arisen over outraged non-conservatives urgently demanding that the president they despise wave the presidential wand to control the entire country's behavior. "It is time for a national lockdown," The New York Times editorialized last week. The longtime progressive website Common Dreams had a remarkable headline two days later: "As Trump Snubs Restrictions to Contain Coronavirus, New Poll Shows 3 in 4 Americans Back a National Lockdown."

As ever, it takes libertarians to bring up rights in the midst of a national freakout. "The president doesn't have constitutional authority to issue a national stay-at-home order, so please stop urging him to do so," one of his fiercest critics, Rep. Justin Amash (IMich.) tweeted today. "He can recommend, but he doesn't get to do whatever he wants, even in a crisis. That's the law. That's our Constitution. It exists to secure our rights."

Rights, shmights, says Vermeule.

"Elaborating on the common-good principle thatno constitutional right to refuse vaccinationexists, constitutional law will define in broad terms the authority of the state to protect the public's health and well-being, protecting the weak from pandemics and scourges of many kindsbiological, social, and economiceven when doing so requires overriding the selfish claims of individuals to private 'rights,'" he wrote.

It was heartening to see so many commentators, including a few fellow-traveler nationalists on the right, flag Vermeuele's manifesto as at the least wrongheaded and at the most frightening. But as the great libertarian legal advocate Timothy Sandefur and others have pointed out, utilitarian, will-to-power constitutionalism is a common feature in non-integrationalist legal academia as well.

And I am perhaps most alarmed by the critique that the anti-liberals get most right: that legal frameworks cannot long survive dislocating separations from the broader culture. Put more bluntly, in response to this deadly and terrifying virus, U.S. politicians are imposing, and Americans are accepting, a series of infringements on liberty more extensive and arbitrary than any I thought I'd see in my lifetime.

In order for liberalism's enemies to be bested, there needs to be a robust liberalism left to defend. Right now, whether in politics or intellectual life or our ongoing overlapping lockdowns, there is little momentum on the side of Team Enlightenment. And we're still nowhere close to the apex of dead bodies. As Keith E. Whittington concluded in his Volokh Conspiracy essay about Vermeuele, "Winter is coming."

See the article here:
Coronavirus Gives the Illiberal Right Fever Dreams of Power - Reason

What Are The Best ASUS Routers in 2020? – The Libertarian Republic

Do you want to know which are Best Asus Routers brand? In addition to having a good VPN network to improve your online security and privacy, it is very important to have a good router at home, which is secure and offers good connectivity. ASUS routers always offer very good functionality and their signatures are the most secure right now.

ASUS routers are one of the best options right now to improve the quality of your local home network. You are going to notice a tremendous difference compared to the m * erd * routers installed by the telephone operators. You are going to take advantage of the 300MB, 400MB or 600MB installed in your fiber connection. Your WIFI connection will fly like never before. Forget about your interference problems.

The truth is that you have to reach a middle ground in quality, performance and price. Some are really expensive (you will not regret buying them) and others are more affordable. In any case, rest assured that you will not be worth paying your operator to install a new router of its own brand. Better buy one yourself and install it at home.

Best Asus Routers

They range from more than 300 euros to 60 euros. The most expensive models such as the ASUS RT-AC88U are perfect for gaming, while the ASUS RT-AC68U or ASUS RT-AC87U are perfect for greatly improving the routers provided by operators in US and in other countries.

-ASUS RT-AC88U AC3100 Dual-Band Gigabit Gaming Router (link aggregation, Aiprotection with TrendMicro, WTFast game accelerator, Nitro QAM)

-ASUS RT-AC87U Dual-Band AC2400 Wireless Router (Gigabit, Access Point Mode, 3G / 4G Dongle Support)

-ASUS RT-AC3200 AC3200 Tri-Band Wireless Router (Gigabit, Repeater, Access Point, USB 3.0, QoS)

-ASUS RT-AC68U AC1900 Dual-band Gigabit Wireless Router (Access Point, USB 3.0, Supports 3G / 4G)

-ASUS RT-AC1200G + Dual-Band AC1200 Gigabit Wireless Router (access point mode, triple VLAN, ASUS router application supported)

Best Asus RoutersModels to Use with VPN Networks or for Gaming:

1. Asus RT-AC5300 Router

The gaming router that we would recommend to everyone, and as it has excellent firmware, also to configure your VPN network throughout your home. The only downside is that it is somewhat expensive, and that the design may not like many, but I can assure you that it impresses. The WIFI signal goes through the thickest walls. Its kind of big and it only has a USB 3.0 port.

-Ultra-fast 4K / UHD resolution and fast file sharing

-Broadcom NitroQAM technology with up to 4334 Mbps

-44 antenna design with AiRadar technology to cover a larger area

-11ac: 2,167Mbps, 802.11n: 600Mbps

-4 x Gigabit Ethernet, 1 x WAN, 1 x USB 2.0, 1 x USB 3.0

Asus RT-AC86U Routers

A perfect router for gaming and to connect to your VPN network. You can install a third-party firmware, but the one that comes from the factory is perfect to use with your VPN network. The connection speed will be magnificent and the extension of your WIFI network too. Its design is daring, and it costs to adapt to the firmware if you have not seen it before, but in the end it is worth it.

-AC2900 Dual Band Gaming Router

-AiMesh Compatible: Connect compatible ASUS routers and create a versatile all-home networked mesh Wi-Fi system

-Triple-VLAN functionality, compatible with your operators triple-play services (Internet, IP Voice and TV), offers automatic management of IP addresses, OpenVPN server and client

-Adaptive QoS and WTFast game accelerator for online gaming and 4K streaming without delay

-High-speed wireless connectivity: AC2900 speeds with NitroQAM technology to perform on the busiest home networks

-Expanded coverage area: High-performance antennas, ASUS AiRadar, and Range Boost help cover difficult areas, and MU-MIMO maximizes performance by connecting multiple devices

-Professional grade security: AiProtection with Trend Micro technology protects all connected devices

-Simple administration: configure and manage your device from the ASUS Router app

-5 x Gigabit LAN, 1 x USB 2.0, 1 x USB 3.0

-11ac 1734 Mbps

Asus ROG Rapture GT-AX11000

Like the ASUS RT-AX88U, it supports the latest WIFI standard and has 8 WIFI antennas so that connectivity reaches your entire home. It also has a 2.5GBase-T port, Adaptive QoS to prioritize traffic and is perfect for use with VPN networks.

-High-speed Wi-Fi: 11000 Mbps

-Three ways to speed up games: speed up game traffic between your device and game server

-8 GHz quad-core CPU, and a 2.5GBase -T port

It is an expensive router, but if money is not an issue and you need the best of the best, then this router is perfect. If you are a game that needs the best connectivity, you can not hesitate to get this model.

Read the original post:
What Are The Best ASUS Routers in 2020? - The Libertarian Republic

Don’t Think of Massie as a Hero – American Greatness

The coronavirus relief plan passed last week, but one congressman tried to stop it.

U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), an ardent libertarian, nearly forced the entire House of Representatives to return to Washington to vote on the plan.

Massie defied the leadership of both parties on behalf of the Constitution . . . at least in his own mind.

Some conservatives saw him as a hero for standing up against the corruption of the swamp. But his protest was ultimately silly and a lame throwback to the libertarianism over which Donald Trump triumphed in 2016.

Massie outlined on Twitter why he opposed the coronavirus relief plan. His main beef was that the Constitution requires a recorded vote on such a bill.

(1/11)I swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and I take that oath seriously.

In a few moments I will request a vote on the CARES Act which means members of Congress will vote on it by pushing yes or no or present.

Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 27, 2020

The Kentucky Republican also complained about the wasteful spending, such as $25 million for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and the increase in the national debt. He didnt offer an alternative to the bill outside of making all of Congress fly back to D.C. to vote on it.

This move inevitably angered Massies congressional colleagues and President Trump. Trump even positively retweeted John Kerry calling Massie an asshole.

Never knew John Kerry had such a good sense of humor! Very impressed! https://t.co/vCVNMUeY2h

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 27, 2020

The congressman was right to oppose the unnecessary pork for undeserving recipients like the Kennedy Center. Most conservatives shared Massies disgust that these provisions made it into the final bill. But most conservatives also realized that there was something more important in the fight than Massies objections.

The relief plan was never going to be perfect. Congress needed to pass a quick compromise to help out Americans in desperate need. Republicans should have been more discerning in what they allowed into the bill. Massie, however, ignored the major problems in the bill.

He didnt mention the $350 million set aside for refugee assistance in his Twitter thread. This is far more than what was allocated to the Kennedy Center and is more of an insult to struggling Americans. Why is our government spending money on foreign nationals at a time when millions of Americans are out of work? This wouldve been a great question for a Republican lawmaker to ask about and oppose.

One Republican did make a fuss about itit wasnt Massie though. It was Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).

$350m for Migration & Refugee Assistance

This is probably politically incorrect. I dont care.

We should secure the economic condition of *every American* before spending the first extra dollar on a program that largely supports people here illegally.

No for CBP/ICE, btw pic.twitter.com/gBFjM2xipt

Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) March 25, 2020

Additionally, the relief plan prohibits Defense Department funds to be used for the border wall. Coronavirus illustrates the dangers of open borders and globalism; any serious response would insist on stricter immigration controls and stronger borders. The provision limits Americas power to protect itself and prevent future pandemics from getting to our country. Yet, Massie, like all Republicans, ignored this restriction.

It would have been far more productive and relevant for Massie to focus on these concerns instead of reviving arguments from 2010. Nationalists and populists shouldnt see the Kentuckians fight as their own.

Serious Trumpists understand the government has an obligation to help out people in a time of need. The arguments over big government and the deficit are relics from the Tea Party era. Were in a new era where Republicans need to fight to protect the people and defend their interests. The government is no longer the enemy, but a tool to advance the national interest.

There is no libertarian solution to the coronavirus crisisunless of course, you want millions of Americans to go broke and the economy to crater.

Massie is a valuable lawmaker for his courageous stands on foreign policy and opposition to disastrous interventions. This is why the establishment hates him, not because he wants limited government. The establishment knows the limited government rhetoric is ultimately toothless. The real threat is the national populist agenda Trump ran on, which combined immigration restrictionism, economic nationalism, and noninterventionism.

It wouldve been great if one Republican lawmaker had taken a stand against the relief package on behalf of that viewpoint. Instead, we got a farcical rehash of the Tea Party fights against Barack Obama.

One Republican aide perfectly summarized Massies rebellion.

Massies a clown in a tricorn hat pretending like its 2010 again, a Senior Republican aide says to sum up the situation.

The aide adds, Hes got no plan to improve the bill because theres no magic bitcoin fix. This isnt TARP, its basically nation-wide hurricane relief.

Philip Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) March 27, 2020

Harsh words, but true. Massie is no national populist champion. Hes acting like a clown in a tricorn hat.

Read the original:
Don't Think of Massie as a Hero - American Greatness

The Coronavirus Pandemic Has Set Off A Massive Expansion Of Government Surveillance. Civil Libertarians Aren’t Sure What To Do. – BuzzFeed News

The journalists at BuzzFeed News are proud to bring you trustworthy and relevant reporting about the coronavirus. To help keep this news free, become a member and sign up for our newsletter, Outbreak Today.

The coronavirus pandemic, which has grown to over 740,000 cases and 35,000 deaths around the world, has been so singular an event that even some staunch advocates for civil liberties say theyre willing to accept previously unthinkable surveillance measures.

Im very concerned about civil liberties, writer Glenn Greenwald, cofounder of the Intercept, who built his career as a critic of government surveillance, told BuzzFeed News. But at the same time, I'm also much more receptive to proposals that in my entire life I never expected I would be, because of the gravity of the threat.

Greenwald won a Pulitzer Prize in 2014 for his reporting on the disclosures by NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who revealed a vast secret infrastructure of US government surveillance. But like others who have spent years raising concerns about government overreach, he now accepts the idea that surveilling people who have contracted the coronavirus could be better than harsher measures to save lives.

The kind of digital surveillance that I spent a lot of years even before Snowden, and then obviously, the two or three years during Snowden advocating against is now something I think could be warranted principally to stave off the more brute solutions that were used in China, Greenwald said.

Greenwald said he was still trying to understand how to balance his own views on privacy against the current unprecedented situation. We have to be very careful not to get into that impulse either where we say, Hey, because your actions affect the society collectively, we have the right now to restrict it in every single way. We're in this early stage where our survival instincts are guiding our thinking, and that can be really dangerous. And Im trying myself to calibrate that.

The kind of digital surveillance that I spent a lot of years advocating against is now something I think could be warranted principally to stave off the more brute solutions that were used in China.

And he is far from the only prominent civil libertarian and opponent of surveillance trying to calibrate their response as governments around the world are planning or have already implemented location-tracking programs to monitor coronavirus transmission, and have ordered wide-scale shutdowns closing businesses and keeping people indoors. Broad expansions of surveillance power that would have been unimaginable in February are being presented as fait accompli in March.

That has split an international community that would have otherwise been staunchly opposed to such measures. Is the coronavirus the kind of emergency that requires setting aside otherwise sacrosanct commitments to privacy and civil liberties? Or like the 9/11 attacks before it, does it mark a moment in which panicked Americans will accept new erosions on their freedoms, only to regret it when the immediate danger recedes?

Under these circumstances? Yeah, go for it, Facebook. You know, go for it, Google, Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico and 2016 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, told BuzzFeed News. But then, when the crisis goes away, how is that going to apply given that it's in place? I mean, these are the obvious questions, and no, that would not be a good thing.

"My fear is that, historically, in any moment of crisis, people who always want massive surveillance powers will finally have an avenue and an excuse to get them, Matthew Guariglia, an analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told BuzzFeed News.

Marc Rotenberg, president and executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), told BuzzFeed News that its possible to find a solution that protects privacy and prevents the spread of the virus.

People like to say, 'well, we need to strike a balance between protecting public health and safeguarding privacy' but that is genuinely the wrong way to think about it, Rotenberg said. You really want both. And if you're not getting both, there's a problem with the policy proposal.

An aerial view from a drone shows an empty Interstate 280 leading into San Francisco, California, March 26.

Beyond the sick and dead, the most immediate effects that the pandemic has visited upon the United States have been broad constraints that state and local governments have imposed on day-to-day movement. Those are in keeping with public health experts recommendations to practice social distancing to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.

While the US hasnt announced a nationwide stay-at-home order like France and Italy have, large parts of the US are under some degree of lockdown, with nonessential businesses shuttered and nonessential activities outside the home either banned or discouraged. And while President Trump and his allies have focused on the economic devastation wrought by this shutdown, some libertarians have raised concerns about the damage those decrees have done to people's freedoms.

Appearing on libertarian former Texas lawmaker and two-time Republican presidential candidate Ron Pauls YouTube show on March 19, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie pointed to a Kentucky man who, after testing positive for the coronavirus, refused to self-isolate, and whom sheriff's deputies forced to stay home. (Massie later came under bipartisan criticism for attempting to hold up the coronavirus stimulus bill in the House.)

What would they do if that man walked out and got in his car? Would they shoot him? Would they suit up in hazmat uniforms and drag him off? Massie said. Those are the images we saw in China two months ago and everybody was appalled at those images. And now were literally, we could be five minutes away from that happening in the United States, here in Kentucky.

Its crazy, and what concerns me the most is that once people start accepting that, in our own country, the fact that somebody could immobilize you without due process, that when this virus is over people will have a more paternalistic view of government and more tolerance for ignoring the Constitution, Massie said.

Last Monday, Paul's son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, announced that he had tested positive for the disease, only a few days after Ron Paul wrote in his online column that the pandemic could be a big hoax pushed by fearmongers to put more power in government hands.

But the elder Paul's concerns are not shared among some of his fellow former Libertarian Party nominees for president.

Johnson said measures to encourage people to stay in their homes and temporarily shutter businesses taken by states like New York were appropriate. I really have to believe that they're dealing with [this] in the best way that they possibly can, he told BuzzFeed News. And I think it's also telling that most of them are following the same route.

Johnson added that although it was easy to raise criticisms, as a former governor, he saw few other options.

You're just not hearing it: What are the alternatives? Johnson said. I don't know, not having [currently] sat at the table as governor, what the options were. And given that every state appears to be doing the same thing, I have to believe that everything is based on the best available information.

A security guard looks at tourists through his augmented reality eyewear equipped with an infrared temperature detector in Xixi Wetland Park in Hangzhou in east China's Zhejiang province Tuesday, March 24. Feature China/Barcroft Media via Getty Images

A map application developed by The Baidu Inc. displays the locations visited by people who have tested positive for the coronavirus in Shanghai, China, on Friday, Feb. 21. Qilai Shen / Bloomberg via Getty Images

Gaming out the role of intense surveillance during a pandemic isnt just a theoretical political debate on YouTube. Surveillance at previously politically unimaginable scales has reached countries around the world.

Imagine opening an app, scanning a QR code, and creating a profile thats instantly linked with information about your health and where you've been. The app tells you if youve been in close contact with someone sick with the coronavirus.

This software already exists in China. Developed by the Electronics Technology Group Corporation and the Chinese government, it works by tapping into massive troves of data collected by the private sector and the Chinese government. In South Korea, the government is mapping the movements of COVID-19 patients using data from mobile carriers, credit card companies, and the Institute of Public Health and Environment. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the country's internal security agency to tap into a previously undisclosed cache of cellphone data to trace the movements of infected persons in that country and in the West Bank. And in the Indian state of Karnataka, the government is requiring people in lockdown to send it selfies every hour to prove they are staying home.

No such tools currently exist in the United States but some in the tech community who might have been expected to oppose such capacities have found themselves favoring these previously unthinkable steps.

Maciej Cegowski, the founder of Pinboard and a frequent critic of tech companies intrusions into privacy, wrote a blog post arguing for a massive surveillance program to fight the virus.

My frustration is that we have this giant surveillance network deployed and working," Cegowski told BuzzFeed News. "We have location tracking. We have people carrying tracking devices on them all the time. But were using it to sell skin cream you know, advertising. And were using it to try to persuade investors to put more money into companies. Since that exists and we have this crisis right now, lets put it to use to save lives.

We put up with the fire department breaking down our door if theres a fire at our neighbors house or in our house because we know that in normal times our houses are sacrosanct.

This position is a major departure for Ceglowski, who has warned of how tech companies have invaded our ambient privacy and argued that tech giants reach into our lives is as pernicious a force as government surveillance.

We put up with the fire department breaking down our door if theres a fire at our neighbors house or in our house because we know that in normal times our houses are sacrosanct, Cegowski said. I think similarly if we can have a sense that well have real privacy regulation, then in emergency situations like this we can decide, hey, were going to change some things.

Those doors are already being broken down. The COVID-19 Mobility Data Network a collaboration between Facebook, Camber Systems, Cuebiq, and health researchers from 13 universities will use corporate location data from mobile devices to give local officials "consolidated daily situation reports" about "social distancing interventions."

Representatives from the COVID-19 Mobility Data Network did not respond to requests for comment.

A person watching live data reporting about the worldwide spread of the coronavirus.

Lots of companies claim that they have the technology to save peoples lives. But critics worry that they are taking advantage of a vulnerable time in American society to sign contracts that won't easily be backed out of when the threat passes.

Sometimes people have an almost sacrificial sense about their privacy, Rotenberg told BuzzFeed News. They say things like, Well, if it'll help save lives for me to disclose my data, of course, I should do that. But that's actually not the right way to solve a problem. Particularly if asking people to sacrifice their privacy is not part of an effective plan to save lives.

In response to the pandemic, some data analytics and facial recognition companies have offered new uses for existing services. Representatives from data analytics company have reportedly been working with the CDC on collecting and integrating data about COVID-19, while Clearview AI has reportedly been in talks with state agencies to track patients infected by the virus.

Neither Palantir nor Clearview AI responded to requests for comment, but the appearance of these controversial companies has raised alarms among those in the privacy community.

The deployment of face recognition, as a way of preventing the spread of virus, is something that does not pass the sniff test at all, Guariglia said. Even the companies themselves, I don't think, can put out a logical explanation as to how face recognition, especially Clearview, would help.

The leaders of other technology companies that design tools for law enforcement have tried to offer tools to combat COVID-19 as well. Banjo, which combines social media and satellite data with public information, like CCTV camera footage, 911 calls, and vehicle location, to detect criminal or suspicious activity, will be releasing a tool designed to respond to the outbreak.

We are working with our partners to finalize a new tool that would provide public health agencies and hospitals with HIPAA-compliant information that helps identify potential outbreaks and more efficiently apply resources to prevention and treatment, a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News.

We have so much history that shows us that mass surveillance generally isn't very effective, and mission creep is inevitable.

Those efforts cause concerns for people like Evan Greer, the deputy director of digital rights activist group Fight for the Future, who told BuzzFeed News that such tools, once deployed, would inevitably be used for more purposes than to fight the pandemic.

We have so much history that shows us that mass surveillance generally isn't very effective, and mission creep is inevitable, she said. It's not necessarily a question of if data that was handed over to the government because of this crisis would be repurposed. It's a matter of when.

In addition to those companies, many camera makers have been making a bold claim: Using just an infrared sensor, they can detect fevers, helping venues filter out the sick from the healthy. These firms include Dahua Technology in Israel, Guide Infrared in China, Diycam in India, Rapid-Tech Equipment in Australia, and Athena Security in the US.

In late February, Guide Infrared announced that it had donated about $144,000 worth of equipment that could warn users when fever is detected to Japan. The company said its devices would be used in Japanese hospitals and epidemic prevention stations.

Although Guide Infrared claimed that its temperature measurement solutions have helped in emergencies including SARS, H1N1, and Ebola, the Chinese army and government authorities are some of its major customers, according to the South China Morning Post. Its been used in railway stations and airports in major Chinese regions. Its also partnered with Hikvision, a Chinese company blacklisted by the US over its work outfitting Chinese detention centers with surveillance cameras.

Australian company Rapid-Tech Equipment claims that its fever-detection cameras can be used in "minimizing the spread [of] coronavirus infections." Its cameras are being used in Algeria, France, Egypt, Greece, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and many more countries, according to its website. UK camera maker Westminster International said that it has a "supply range of Fever Detection Systems for Coronavirus, Ebola & Flu."

US company Testo Thermal Imaging sells two cameras with a FeverDetection assistant. A section of its website titled Why fever detection? argues that managers of high-traffic venues have a responsibility to filter for fevers: Whether ebola, SARS or coronavirus: no-one wants to imagine the consequences of an epidemic or even a pandemic.

A Testo spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that the company has seen a massive increase in demand for its products in response to the coronavirus and that its cameras are being used worldwide. The spokesperson declined to provide specific examples or name specific countries.

While the appetite for fever-detecting cameras is clearly there, civil liberties advocates have concerns. Guariglia said that, regardless of their thermal imaging capabilities, surveillance cameras are surveillance cameras.

More surveillance cameras always have dubious implications for civil liberties. Even if their contract with thermal imaging ends at the end of six months, Guariglia said, I bet those cameras are gonna stay up.

A man wearing a protective mask walks under surveillance cameras in Shanghai.

Julian Sanchez, an analyst with the Cato Institute and commentator on digital surveillance and privacy issues, told BuzzFeed News he was willing to accept measures he might otherwise have concerns about to limit the spread of the virus.

Im about as staunch a privacy guy as it gets, Sanchez said. In the middle of an epidemic outbreak, there are a number of things Im willing to countenance that I would normally object to, on the premise that they are temporary and will save a lot of lives.

But he still questioned the efficacy of some of the current proposals: Theres a ton of snake oil being pitched by surveillance vendors, he said.

More than that, he had concerns about what would happen to civil liberties after the pandemic passed, but the measure put in place to combat it did not.

I think a lot of civil liberties advocates would say, Well, if this is very tightly restricted, and only for this purpose, and it's temporary, then, you know, maybe that's all right. Maybe were able to accept that, if were confident it's for this purpose, and then it ends, Sanchez said. The question is whether that's the case.

Sanchez worried that the coronavirus, like the war on terror, is an open-ended threat with no clear end inviting opportunities for those surveillance measures to be abused long after the threat has passed.

In the same week that he spoke, the US Senate voted to extend until June the FBI's expanded powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, originally passed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks 19 years ago.

Mar. 30, 2020, at 21:57 PM

Clearview AI has reportedly been in talks with state governments. An earlier version of this story misstated the government agency it had reportedly been in contact with.

See the original post:
The Coronavirus Pandemic Has Set Off A Massive Expansion Of Government Surveillance. Civil Libertarians Aren't Sure What To Do. - BuzzFeed News