71–80 of 204 posts
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
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.
Another difference is that you aren't using this data (which are collected anyway) to contain the epidemic. I can't figure out why.
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…
(Which of course becomes self-reinforcing... If the vast majority of people who see the headline are led to think the apps don’t work, then they won’t want to adopt them... and low adoption is, of course, the very “failure” discussed in the first place...)
This may seem like a small thing, but the apparent license-to-lie-or-at-least-use-half-truths-in-headlines that many media editors (because editors, NOT journalists, control the headlines) believe they have is maybe the biggest problem in media accuracy we have. We are bombarded with 10-100 times as many headlines as we can possibly hope to read, which is a constant background noise of half-truths.
And yeah, of course a headline won’t be able to tell the full story. But it should be accurate enough and not misleading. The excuse of “but you have to read the full article or you’re just lazy” is a ridiculous cop-out for a license to lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Apple or Google are going to introduce a non-optional surveillance mechanism into their devices, there’s no particular need to build it off of their contact tracing platform. You’re thinking the contact tracing platform somehow paves the way for an actual surveillance system, but it doesn’t. If they want to build a surveillance system then they will, and the success/failure/adoption rate of their contact tracing p…
> there’s no particular need to build it off of their contact tracing platform Building surveillance off the contact-tracing platform would allow the three-letter agencies to track movement of a single device regardless of whether or not you try to sever its connection to the cellular network. You might be able to hide a single device from the network, but would you be able to hide all the other devices around you th…
They can do this without the contact tracing platform.
Regarding PR, that too can be done very well without a contact tracing “success story”. Also, forcing people to unlock their devices is not an element of the the contact tracing platform.
I’m not sure why you’re convinced the contact tracing platform is a necessary or even helpful step for any of these things you worry about. But it isn’t. You will be able to take more fruitful actions against these things once you understand that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Indeed, if you start with the contact tracing platform, add a mass surveillance system to it, you end up with a mass surveillance system. Note that a surveillance system like the one you propose doesn’t need the contact tracing platform to work.
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…
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…
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…
Ask me if I will volunteer to give apple or google any more information than they already collect and my answer will always be no. I don't care what the reasoning. Germany did it right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a false choice. But even if it were true, yes, over lives. People already died fighting for my liberal rights, I'm not willing to trade any of that for some temporary safety. I'm from a Warsaw pact country. Seeing westerners so willing to give up their rights these days is so deeply disappointing.
The false choice here is actually that you can sacrifice lives and still expect to have freedom. The alternative to not giving up privacy for contact tracing or similar measures is to be locked into your home medieval style while the plague runs wild in the streets, which is a significantly stronger limitation of freedoms. The choice isn't between liberty or safety, just as it isn't between economic health and lockdo…