[zaroth]

The Constitution actually has a framework for this. For individual liberties, any limits must pass “strict scrutiny”. Warrants must not be general, but must be particular in the persons and places to be searched.

So in short, IANAL, but I doubt the government could ever require such an app be built. However, there’s nothing short of market forces stopping the major tech companies from building the dragnet and deploying it in an OS update to billions of devices completely voluntarily.

...Unless, perhaps, there’s a privacy or data protection framework that might happen to apply but which doesn’t get immediately waived for this application?

[swasheck]

If market forces demand some sort of contact tracing application, but it largely violates Constitutional ethos, can the “business” be declared Unconstitutional? Is that even in the purview of the Constitution? I wouldn’t imagine so, but I’m just musing on the topic. When our foundational ethic runs in direct conflict with our economic ethic, which takes priority?

[a1369209993]

> can the “business” be declared Unconstitutional?

Strictly speaking the business would be criminal (like a protection racket or slave market), but noone ever enforces that, so it's a bit of moot point.

[TeMPOraL]

I'd say that in practice, economic "ethic" would win, and that's because it's a bit of a blind spot in the discussion about freedoms: technically, all involved choices are voluntary, as the economic gun pressed to your temple is considered out of scope.

[closeparen]

There are many Constitutional rights that require us to let a pandemic burn. For example free association, free assembly, free movement across state borders, due process for imprisonment. But "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...