31–40 of 204 posts
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.
There has to be a clever way of doing this that isn’t super invasive. Having businesses record their customers and retain the only copy seems like a good compromise except something like personal phone numbers would be abused. Maybe best would be something identifiable only to the authorities but recorded and held only by businesses. Something like driver’s license date of issuance and first name. In theory that woul…
There is QR code provider and QR code scanner. QR code provider includes Naver (Google in South Korea) and Kakao (WhatsApp in South Korea). QR code scanner is mandatory at venues. QR code is a random UUID. Venues keep UUID (but do not know real world identity), providers keep UUID-to-identity mapping (but do not know real world activity), KCDC gets feed from both venues and providers, join them, and do the contact tracing. In particular, it is legally mandated that only KCDC can do the join.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the Apple/Google mechanism is not useful for surveillance.
It is. It just requires additional beacons and at least one point where a real identity can be matched.
Thanks I think I'll keep using the app
Very wrong. Smartphone contact tracing is successful. (e.g. in South Korea.) It's only decentralised smartphone contact tracing that failed.
The article quickly glosses over this fact (and leaves out Taiwan) and labels this successful system for stopping COVID-19 spread as draconian. I imagine that the NSA/CIA/FBI already has such a system in place that maybe it would just needs to get scaled up to cover everyone in the US. It's too bad the people in the US can't trust their government to ramp up and use such a tool to stop COVID-19 and then shut down the system afterwords. The Patriot Act proved that once given special powers any limited time provisions just keep getting extended forever. Some people born after 9/11 are adults at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over lives?
This is the same argument as justifying the NSA's mass surveillance with terrorism. Because lives are involved, it's propagated like a killer argument. Fact is, you don't know if even worse things aren't going to be enabled with this technology.
This is more like tailing people who buy bombs and visit crowded public places with them.
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.
It's easy to give something up when you don't understand the danger of losing it. And we live in times where it's easier to give up your privacy than ever before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the Apple/Google mechanism is not useful for surveillance.
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.
For a very broad definition of "you" and for an unconventionally small set called "everyone". If you are forced to quarantine, a lot of people will know about your infection anyways, completely without any convoluted mental gymnastics about theoretical deanonyzation possibilities. Epidemic control has always been a very low privacy endeavor and app-based tracing following the Google/Apple model doesn't change that the tiniest bit. In fact of it was fully deployed it could replace a lot of far more invasive tracing, causing a net increase in privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s optional and opt-in now. Do you trust it to stay that way once the framework is in 99% of people’s pocket? I sure don’t.
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…
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 that are trying to snitch on you?
Surveillance is more than just the technical means of data collection but also the societal framework in which it occurs. Contact tracing, if it worked, would have been a bunch of "good PR" for surveillance in general, and that affects how people will react to similar increases of data collection in the future. How to you think the FBI's 2015 case against Apple would have gone if there was already precedent for unlocking devices if the owner was thought to be infected?