361–370 of 568 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That claim is worthless when the software is closed source. It's impossible to verify.
Well you can always look at the network packets, most easily accomplished from jailbroken devices. There are many people who look at such matters. It's far from worthless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As another commenter pointed out, if the app is not using the contact tracing framework developed by Google and Apple, then the app can basically do whatever it wants (mandate continuous location access etc.).
I don't think apps are allowed to do this on Android any more. You can designate that an app can only have location access while the app is open and in use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another consideration that seems to have been obscured by the debate on privacy and the narrow focus on the particular client implementation of the app is the significant problem of false positives and negatives. A lot of voices have spoken out about this issue overseas (particularly in the US) while many local tech voices have skipped considering this at all. See: * Previous FTC CTO / Obama Whitehouse senior adviser…
I assume that the use model is as a way to help human contact tracing, not to replace. Admittedly, the benefit is less then, but maybe it's still worth it?
When you consider that close contacts include anyone you've spent more than 2 hours with in a room, it becomes clear that most life situations are not handled by estimates of proximity using bluetooth: home, family & friend visits, workplaces.
You can find a deep-dive into these issues here:
https://blog.crushthecurve.today/why-should-you-install-the-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? I don't think this is accurate. From what I recall, the US was/is spying on the major tech companies and would regularly demand data and place gag orders on those companies. Neither actions are willful forms of data transfer. The first is actually an eternal game of cat and mouse. NSA finds a leak for some data, Google fixes it, new leak, etc. The second is targeted handover of data, and only affects a few indi…
> is spying on the major tech companies and would regularly demand data and place gag orders on those companies. So you agree. > Neither actions are willful forms of data transfer. What’s that got to do with it? > Equating these with the US government having full access to everyone's data is misleading. If the data exists, the only prudent approach is to assume state-level actors, at least , can get access to it.
Even nation state actors will have a harder time gathering data that only exists locally on a bunch of smartphones, separate from geolocation as proposed here, versus a centralised database lacking comprehensive oversight.
The rest is pretty irrelevant, we're talking about data collection using phones that already have an OS from both of these vendors. "But Snowden" is really no argument anybody in these discussions will listen to (and I'm not convinced they should if it's used in a way to imply that you shouldn't use the internet for anything). If you have a problem with data collection for contact tracing please be specific why and optimally provide what you feel would be a better alternative.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've long felt like Apple is uniquely easy to distrust, due to its almost total lack of visible employees. I assume there are actual people working there, but I've never seen one, say, speak (openly) at a meetup or answer a stackoverflow question, or the like. ~Everything I know about Apple either comes from an advertisement or from a guy who talked to a guy who talked to Gruber, and I have a feeling that that makes…
Do you find companies with public facing employees that give talks at meetups and conferences easier to trust? In other words, you trust Facebook, Google, NSA, and Congress more than Apple? Seems like an odd standard.
That is: I'm not saying a company is trustworthy if-and-only-if its employees speak publicly. I'm saying that my mental model of what a company would or wouldn't do internally is strongly influenced by what I know about its employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think apps are allowed to do this on Android any more. You can designate that an app can only have location access while the app is open and in use.
Right, for sure, that’s a choice users have. (On the iphone too, fwiw). Sadly, outside of tech circles very few people would have the knowledge or even motivation to do this. The attitudes of the populace to online privacy are frighteningly callous.
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…
One should never unequivocally trust for-profit companies.
Its interesting that they call this a "Contact Tracing app" even after changing the naming to ExposureNotification.framework I think these restrictions are meant to win confidence with a somewhat skeptical public. This will also confine the apps to be single purpose for contact tracing only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've long felt like Apple is uniquely easy to distrust, due to its almost total lack of visible employees. I assume there are actual people working there, but I've never seen one, say, speak (openly) at a meetup or answer a stackoverflow question, or the like. ~Everything I know about Apple either comes from an advertisement or from a guy who talked to a guy who talked to Gruber, and I have a feeling that that makes…
The general populace generally doesn’t pay any attention to any statements from any employees of any company. Those in the tech industry generally don’t pay any attention to statements from any employees of any company outside the tech industry. Being aware of statements from employees does not appear to be a factor in terms of trust in a company.