Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple, Google ban location tracking in apps using their contact-tracing system

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 568 posts

Re: Apple, Google ban location tracking in apps using their contact-tracing system

#501

Post by golergka »

m12k wrote: post #371
azinman2 wrote: post #239

I have to say, working at Apple and knowing all the hard work that goes into this and making sure your data stays private while also being able to combat this disease, it's very frustrating to read a lot of the comments here. I can understand why the public is skeptical, but I feel like as a society we've swung so far away from institutional trust that now nothing good can actually emerge. The anti-vax movement is a…

I think the notion of trusting any company over a certain size is crazy - I wish people would stop anthropomorphizing companies that way. Basically, I can trust specific people if I feel that I know their character, and by proxy I might trust a company that these people have significant control over. Once a company reaches a certain size, any power that individual employees wield will have been diluted to microscopic…

> Once a company reaches a certain size, any power that individual employees wield will have been diluted to microscopic levels, and even founders' altruistic motivations tend to fade or get drowned out by the basic profit motives of an increasingly large group of shareholders.

I couldn't agree more. But at the same time, I'm completely baffled that while this sentiment about companies is widely agreed upon on HN, people around here don't expand this from companies to much more powerful and dangerous orgs: governments.

Re: Apple, Google ban location tracking in apps using their contact-tracing system

#502

Post by throwawaylolx »

gpm wrote: post #487
jfk13 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> senior management and/or the board membership stays essentially the same Defining "essentially the same" sounds hard, especially if a series of "small" changes happen over a period of time. Ship of Theseus, anyone?

A series of small changes gives consumers time to react and the value of the brand to naturally evolve, so arguably that's not a problem.

>so arguably that's not a problem.

As soon as you try defining "small changes" and the period of time on which they can occur, it is arguably a problem that will lead to loopholes easily abused by the legal departments of any big corp.

Re: Apple, Google ban location tracking in apps using their contact-tracing system

#503

Post by rcxdude »

aguyfromnb wrote: post #483
gonehome wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure - and there are nuanced/interesting discussions that can happen about the risks, but that’s not what most of this commentary is. Most of the comments are empty of any actual content from people who haven’t even tried to read about the protocol they’re working on. The protocol is designed by people aware and concerned about these risks (which is why the way it works is pretty interesting). A lot of interesting wo…

> The governments of the west need to be capable, but still protect the privacy of their people - that isn't an easy problem You're right, it's a hard problem. And until these companies or institutions can prove that they are doing this, why should we trust them? > who haven’t even tried to read about the protocol they’re working on. The companies will collect and store the tracking data, and the government will, one…

> The companies will collect and store the tracking data, and the government will, one way or another, have access to it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

It's difficult to understand because it's false (and this statement shows you haven't tried to understand the solution they are proposing): The data doesn't leave the phone without the user's consent, the consent is only asked for if the user contracts the disease, and the data uploaded when consent is given is only useful to those who have been in the vicinity of that user: the companies developing the system and the government do not get a list of users and their contacts (they get no data at all from anyone who does not consent, and they still don't get contact data from those who do).

The only issue of trust is whether the implementation on the phones matches their statements: but this is already a general problem with phones in general: if you are trusting them to run the OS you are already trusting they will not exfiltrate this and more data. I see no actual expansion in their powers through adopting this approach, and I see them making every effort to protect privacy while achieving the requirements, which is in stark constract to government approaches.

Re: Apple, Google ban location tracking in apps using their contact-tracing system

#505

Post by throwawaylolx »

pjc50 wrote: post #482
kd5bjo wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defining what represents a change-of-control is probably the trickiest part of moving this from an interesting idea to a real proposal. Probably, the key factor should be whether or not the senior management and/or the board membership stays essentially the same; new management should be required to earn their own trust from customers that might not follow company news.

Realistically that means no brand lasting longer than about ten years, and the total elimination of lots of century-old brands that people have fond relationships with. It's a stupidly excessive hammer that fails to address the real problems. And it's probably going to suffer the obvious free speech challenges.

> lots of century-old brands that people have fond relationships with.

That's the problem being discussed--the fond relationships are built with entities that no longer exist, and it is argued that current brand practices are deceiving for the consumer side of the relationship and abusive on the producer side.

Re: Apple, Google ban location tracking in apps using their contact-tracing system

#506

Post by choward »

dordoka wrote: post #500
choward wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have to say, working at Apple and knowing all the hard work that goes into this and making sure your data stays private while also being able to combat this disease, it's very frustrating to read a lot of the comments here. As a person reading comments it's frustrating that an Apple employee thinks their company is special and should be trusted. It doesn't matter what you say, at the end of the day your goal is t…

To be able to install anything that uses the new contact tracing stuff, you must own a phone that is based either on iOS or Android. I'm honestly curious: if you are using any of those already, is that not even worse than this "garbage" you talk about?

I actually posted my comment from my Android phone. And yes, it is garbage.

Re: Apple, Google ban location tracking in apps using their contact-tracing system

#507

Post by kd5bjo »

mongol wrote: post #473
kd5bjo wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve thought for a while that trademarks should be non-transferrable, and should be voided on change-of-control of a company. Their primary purpose is to let the consumer know the origin of goods, and to allow companies to build a reputation around intangible properties of their products, like longevity, quality, and craftsmanship. Selling a trademark is fundamentally betraying that trust in exchange for a monetary r…

Very interesting. Is this your own idea or has it been more widely discussed?

I don't recall hearing it from anywhere, but it's the sort of idea I'd expect to crop up from time to time. I haven't done any research to find out if anyone else has seriously suggested or investigated it.

Re: Apple, Google ban location tracking in apps using their contact-tracing system

#508

Post by kristiandupont »

choward wrote: post #470
killjoywashere wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a lifelong public servant, welcome to the ungrateful side of life. If you're providing a service to the public with the hopes of their gratitude, you will be sad. Do it for the same reason you change your baby's diaper: you love them and it needs doing. They might take pleasure in pissing on you while you're doing it, but this thing you love will be better off afterward.

Haha. Are you serious? Equating Apple with "public servants"? Probably the most naive thing I've ever seen.

This kind of dismissal of an analogy bothers me. It's quite common, most often just using the word comparing: "Are you seriously comparing this to ...???"

Analogies are a great tool for clarifying similarities and no, that doesn't mean that situation A shares every virtue or vice with situation B. If so, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be the same.

Re: Apple, Google ban location tracking in apps using their contact-tracing system

#509

Post by Juno321 »

Springtime wrote: post #471
sk0g wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since people seem to be downvoting without commenting: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/05/covidsafe-issues-ios-ipho...

I wasn't one who downvoted but parent post was asking for source on whether this app is going to utilize the new APIs, specifically. According to your subsequent link, near the bottom, currently it's unclear: "The Government will work with Google and Apple to investigate whether the new functionality announced by Google and Apple partnership is beneficial for the app performance"

The COVID Safe app was already released (although not fully functional on the server side yet) but the Google and Apple APIs are not available yet, so doesn't that mean that it isn't using the Google and Apple APIs? At least currently, any way.

According to the Australian COVIDSafe app's privacy policy, when you register for the app, after you successfully enter a PIN sent by SMS, it transmits the following info to the Australian authorities: your mobile phone number, the name you enter, the age range you enter, the postcode you enter. The reasons for each are explained in the policy. This data is stored in the cloud. I don't see why the registration info (I'm just talking about the registration info, not the Blutooth-related data) can't simply be entered later, or stored locally on the device and not uploaded until, when and if, the user volunteers to share their registration info with health authorities, e.g. as a result of being notified that someone that was near them has tested positive for COVID-19. If this info wasn't transmitted as part of setting up the app, I expect the uptake of the Australian COVIDSafe app would be significantly higher.

I am also still waiting for Australia to publish the source code for their COVIDSafe app...

Post reply on HN