61–70 of 204 posts
You don't want to install a tracing app for "privacy reasons" fine. Just make sure you don't have any of: Google's location history turned on, any FB app (FB/Instagram/Whatsapp), TikTok, 4sq/swarm, Tinder, Happn, or any app that has fine-grained location permissions.
"I care so much about my privacy!!!1!!1
- Sent from my android phone. "
go figure...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, though. If you're not infected you retain your privacy, but once you're infected and give up your contact tracing key, everyone can know whether you have been near them or not. Combine this fact with a network of Bluetooth beacons at fixed locations and a malicious actor can basically track where anywhere an infected person has went.
Random Bluetooth identifiers rotate every 10-20 minutes, to help prevent tracking [1]. (Of course it's always possible to track phones with their radios on for some time and distance.) [1] https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/cu...
[1] technically this is optional, but not doing so also means you're not reporting your infected status to others, which kills the point of contact tracing.
But I thought the biggest problem was that Google and Apple didn't build a contract tracing app - they built a framework for local governments to build apps on top of. This leaves the work of marketing the app and driving adoption to each government (as well as building and operating the service, which is also significant).
When I first heard about this, I thought they were going to build a pair of apps for Android and iOS. It would come as part of an OTA update, and everyone around the world would be presented with a yes/no dialog asking whether they wanted to participate. Local governments would then be provided access to a SaaS that would let their contact tracers enter the tokens of known positive cases.
I'm fairly sure that this would've resulted in significantly higher adoption rates.
I have no idea what the point was, to require every government build/market/operate their own version of the exact same app. Maybe so that the backends could be independent? If so, I imagine there would be other ways to work around that, like offering a cloud service and/or an open source backend implementation for governments to self-host.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is. It just requires additional beacons and at least one point where a real identity can be matched.
So, theoretical attack relying on non-existing deployments to get a person's past position, even with several other ways of obtaining the same information (for example: cell tower tracing, collecting info from cameras, cctv, card purchases, etc) Thanks I think I'll keep using the app
There was a very specific claim about the Google/Apple approach and its usefulness for surveillance and someone objected by teasing a possible pathway for using proximity tracing for surveillance.
One can acknowledge an approaches inherent risks without making absolute judgements about the approach in general.
I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the article or any comments, and I'm wondering whether I'm missing something about the significance of this. But I thought the biggest problem was that Google and Apple didn't build a contract tracing app - they built a framework for local governments to build apps on top of. This leaves the work of marketing the app and driving adoption to each government (as well as building an…
If you have google maps installed on your phone and location turned on, every time you visit a restaurant you already get the message of "how did you like xyz, please rate and help other visitors" You are already living in a surveillance state. The difference is unlike in other places in the world you can complain and shout about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the Apple/Google mechanism is not useful for surveillance.
It is if you build Bluetooth scanners everywhere in a city and correlate the scan data with other surveillance data, as simple as pointing a camera at whoever passes by a scanner.
Ignoring the headline, it seems like the article equates quick, widespread adoption of these apps as “success”, and anything else as “failure”. Although it does note: > Conventional contact tracing methods also haven’t been faring well. Despite this, it doesn’t even bother to identify the many reasons tracing apps might not be widely adopted yet, in particular privacy concerns (although it does mention that “draconia…
I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the article or any comments, and I'm wondering whether I'm missing something about the significance of this. But I thought the biggest problem was that Google and Apple didn't build a contract tracing app - they built a framework for local governments to build apps on top of. This leaves the work of marketing the app and driving adoption to each government (as well as building an…
Ignoring the headline, it seems like the article equates quick, widespread adoption of these apps as “success”, and anything else as “failure”. Although it does note: > Conventional contact tracing methods also haven’t been faring well. Despite this, it doesn’t even bother to identify the many reasons tracing apps might not be widely adopted yet, in particular privacy concerns (although it does mention that “draconia…
In particular for France, regulations were passed to allow or deny activities, set curfew etc. with hefty fines associated, all of that at a few days notice at most. So, not closely following the news was not an option, and the tracing app got plenty of air time.
Now, it came after a month or two of bullshit from the health dept (“you don’t need masks, also go vote in person, it’s fine”), which itself came after half a year of protests against the gov, so most people weren’t sold on gov’s good intents on not abusing the app, especially as Apple/Google’s privacy focused solution was not adopted.