COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US)

I mean, given that you can lie to them, it pretty much so is voluntary.

Like I said, it makes me uncomfortable too, but in the end I really doubt they will use the information for anything other than contact tracing and given the general level of competence of our government, I doubt they will even use it for that. And they already have a lot more than you name and phone number anyway. Hell, they could use the crime cameras to track people by their licenses plates or put out photos of people who were in an area with an infection. (I find that much more disturbing.)

It's not ideal, but it's better than doing it at every business and in the end, you really don't have to do it since you can give them a fake name and number if you choose not to do something to help with contact tracing. And, as has been mentioned before, this is less intrusive than them just getting a warrant, or not bothering to get a warrant based on exigent circumstances, to get the information from any number of other sources like your mobile phone, debit card, GPS in your car, etc.

I get the principle of it all, but I'm finding it really hard to get worked up over giving a restaurant my name and phone number which I have done many times in the past.

But, I'm curious, do you answer the Census?

Also, LaToya mentioned that the Archdioses will be having people register on line and reserve spots to go the Mass? And while they are not required to make those lists or keep them, she noted that those lists could be used to contact trace if necessary. I assume this has been agreed to by the Archbishop, but I'm not certain. So, will you be attending Mass?

Finally, I do you think some right is being unconstitutionally violated? If so, which one?

I don't know that I'd use a fake name. I'm just saying that if I ate under those terms, that would be how I'd do it. And it would be obviously so as a form of protest. But I don't know that I'd do that, for some of the moral concerns mentioned. I'd probably just go to a restaurant in a neighboring parish honestly. Also, I have no love of crime cameras or traffic cameras so I don't see the point in using them as a justification for requiring a restaurant to provide my personal information to the city of New Orleans. The argument that existing privacy violations somehow justify this one is odd.

As for the census, I do participate as compelled by law. However, I'm sure you can see the difference between a census and the government compelling a private company to collect the personal information of their customers in order to operate. I'm under no misunderstandings about the current situation in which my privacy is near zero inasmuch as I use a phone or email or search engine (non pornographic of course). And the relationship between the government and the private companies that collect and sell that data are obviously a problem. But again, that doesn't justify the explicit compulsion of requiring private businesses to collect and provide customer data in order for them to operate. It's way over the line, even if the intention is good. Most tyrannical oversteps are justified to the public by seemingly good intention.

Concerning churches participating in logging for the mayor, I will not attend mass at a church that will require me to give information to the mayor of New Orleans. It was an immediate concern of mine. I'd be seriously troubled if the bishop tried to operate under those terms. It'd probably violate all sorts of canon law. If politicians press on the matter we will witness a serious gut check for the Church in which bishops will decide whether they are good little civil servants of the temporal order or apostles and ministers in the priesthood of Christ our Lord. I received the archdiocesan letter this morning and saw no mention of logging and it was obviously up to date on information. I'm eager to see what my parish says.