[ivanonymous]

I'm curious as a non-expert what's specifically worrying about their privacy model?

My intuition is that rapid adoption of a relatively transparent privacy-preseving option could preempt more heavy-handed approaches to what could be a very valuable public health intervention.

[tomcooks]

I'd agree if remote tracking was the only option, and if there was a guaranteed policy against public backslash towards those that don't comply out of privacy reasons (which would skyrocket in a health hazard emergency).

These privacy exceptions all affected goverments are talking about (Italy being a great example, viz. Veneto region governor asking for a change in privacy laws the other day) are not going to magically disappear once the coast is clear, just like post 9/11 emergency laws still being used in the US.

I believe there are other ways to help people and that, if you are a government that claims having to resort to remote control its popoulation, maybe your power is either insufficient for your secret expansion goals or you're an inefficient populist.

Every (western) government publicly hates the Chinese government but they do seem to have wet dreams about the population control bit, especially when backed by corporations.

[shadowgovt]

Exactly. People are decrying this because it gives governments capabilities, as if decrying its existence changes that capability model or implies that in the absence of this tool and in a state of emergency, governments wouldn't be stuck trying to accomplish the same goals this tool enables using cruder methods that would be more intrusive to people's lives.

It's like hating gunpowder exists because people can make bullets and fight wars with it.