Many governments already track and save all communication in a big graph database - in order to know who communicates with whom - so they can find "terrorists". It's just that in some places "terrorist" means people, journalists, etc, that oppose the corrupt government.
So the government already know who communicates with who. And now they also want to feed everyone's location to that database, so they can know everyone who has ever met with or talked to a "terrorist". Where I live you can be sentences to wear a tracking device instead of a prison sentence. Now everyone will be prisoners.
U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
71–80 of 186 posts
Re: U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
#72The interesting thing about ideas like this is that they reveal how authoritarianism during times of stability does a terrible amount of damage during times of crisis. This is the sort of problem that could be solved in a better world; collecting location data to find interactions between people would allow you to get them tested faster and prevent a disease from spreading. But it simply can't be done in this country…
[deleted]
Re: U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
#73What if every coronavirus victim voluntarily uploads their location data publically (their identity kept anonymous). Now you can, without uploading your own data anywhere, check if you have ever been in vicinity of any of them. If you have been, you can get tested and then upload your own data if that comes out positive. This way not eveyone has to share their data, only a few who have been infected.
Exactly, push right instead of pull. But it would require the systems to be designed in such a way that the user has ownership of the data they produce. GDPR should have solved that. Google location services have a complete history but it is not something I can download and share with a 3rd party which would in theory simply scan for possible encounters with infected people. We need to design systems that are interoperable, if a system is collecting data I produce, I should be able to retrieve that data at the click of a button, and share them to another service if I wish so.
Re: U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
#74What if every coronavirus victim voluntarily uploads their location data publically (their identity kept anonymous). Now you can, without uploading your own data anywhere, check if you have ever been in vicinity of any of them. If you have been, you can get tested and then upload your own data if that comes out positive. This way not eveyone has to share their data, only a few who have been infected.
Cellular triangulation is not sufficiently accurate for that. GPS signal has the same problem, and is often not available inside.
Re: U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
#75The interesting thing about ideas like this is that they reveal how authoritarianism during times of stability does a terrible amount of damage during times of crisis. This is the sort of problem that could be solved in a better world; collecting location data to find interactions between people would allow you to get them tested faster and prevent a disease from spreading. But it simply can't be done in this country…
I’ve regressed to my cynical default in the past few days, but “a large institution that I would trust with this authority” sounds like pure fantasy.
I agree but it's also the most compelling fantasy in human history.
Re: U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
#76The government tracking everyone's location all the time would be/is a gross infringement on privacy. The government tracking everyone's location for a limited time period in order to curb a deadly epidemic seems much more reasonable. The difficulty is trusting them to give back that power when the crisis is over. If not for the experience of the Patriot Act, I'd be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt ther…
[deleted]
Re: U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
#77The government tracking everyone's location all the time would be/is a gross infringement on privacy. The government tracking everyone's location for a limited time period in order to curb a deadly epidemic seems much more reasonable. The difficulty is trusting them to give back that power when the crisis is over. If not for the experience of the Patriot Act, I'd be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt ther…
This is happening already - anyone who use Google map has their location data collected for the past 10 years with default setting. Police can issue geofencing warrant against the location/time and Google will share that data. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/18/google_geofence_war... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/13/us/google-loc...
Thanks for the links.
I read the first one in detail, and it's not Google Maps, but worse, it's cell phone location data for all phones, for up to a decade, probably more, in a database called SensorVault. So it can be used as a global surveillance database.
This is not surprising, since data companies always have a database like this, but we should have privacy laws in place to limit retention time and access.
Source: DBA.
Re: U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
#78The interesting thing about ideas like this is that they reveal how authoritarianism during times of stability does a terrible amount of damage during times of crisis. This is the sort of problem that could be solved in a better world; collecting location data to find interactions between people would allow you to get them tested faster and prevent a disease from spreading. But it simply can't be done in this country…
I agree. Ironically the measures that should have increased national security are endangering social contracts established around fundamental rights in a way the opposite is achieved. But I guess you are preaching to the choir here...
But that aside, I don't think the measure would be worthwhile even now. Instead focus should be to fortify local health services and provide support where needed.
A damaged believe that fundamental rights are compromised has of course negative repercussions on the willingness to cooperate with authorities of any kind.
Trust cannot be enforced and authority is always limited. I wouldn't call it paranoia, because in that case the respective fears aren't confirmed that often by people now in solitary confinement because some hot shots thought they were in control and did was was allegedly necessary.
Re: U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
#79No comment that I’ve seen seems to acknowledge rejection of carrying a phone around.
In order for the data to be uncompromised there would need to be a mandate to carry the phone everywhere.
If not participating meant being cast out of society, some people might be okay with that.
How should we handle it?
Re: U.S. govt, tech industry discuss using location data to combat coronavirus
#80Well, buckle up folks.
Android's GLS service has an absolute insane data ingestion pipeline consisting of sensor fusion from GPS, Wifi, accelerometer, barometric data, and cell tower locations. It's accurate to within meters, can locate you inside buildings, can count your footsteps, and even knows what floor you've been on.
It's been used by Google to tune its indoor WiFi maps and improve location accuracy for years.
Anyone who has high location accuracy mode turned on and has Google Play Services has already been unwittingly uploading "anonymized" location data multiple times an hour for literally years. In many cases such anonymized data is accurate to within a meter and contains accelerometer data that can literally count your footsteps and determine if you are walking, running, riding in a car, etc. Anonymized GLS data is what informs traffic congestion and many other "non scary" services.
Google believes the negotiation of a 7-day expiration of randomized UID is sufficient anonymization to meet the legal definition in all of its markets. It might be right about the legal definition. It's wrong if it believes it actually anonymizes data. Google believes a popup notifying that high accuracy mode may upload "anonymized usage data" to Google's services constitutes informed consent according to GDPR. I think the EU would disagree if they knew the technical capabilities of Google's infrastructure.
Google's internal privacy review system believes that they are safeguarding the privacy of its users. Their model does not take into account NSLs or interference from intelligence agencies. And it absolutely did not foresee this.
The surveillance dystopia is here, folks, and your Android phone won't do anything noticeably different. They'll flip some switches in their ingestion pipeline and have an insanely powerful draconian surveillance network instantly.
It's over.