4 ms·

It was HARD to read through this whole article, but I did it anyway and I totally disagree. The argument that private companies are already tracking you doesn'

It was HARD to read through this whole article, but I did it anyway and I totally disagree. The argument that private companies are already tracking you doesn't exactly hold up, you don't have to install Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Messenger, Google Chrome, or whatever else on your phone. There's ways of limiting tracking by private companies (not always easy for every user but there are options).

ForHackernews 7y ago
That doesn't matter because your phone carrier is already tracking you and selling that data, regardless of what apps you use or don't use.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  I hardly believe phone carriers are cracking TLS en masse.
  - kichik 7y ago
    They don't need to crack TLS to get your location. And on top of that, they can sell SNI information.
    - rowanG077 7y ago
      SNI information is really, really limited though. Besides physical location tracking has been possible since the existence of phones. That's nothing new.
  - AndrewKemendo 7y ago
    They don't need to. Your IMEI and IMSI is enough to keep you tracked. Personal attribution doesn't require much third party publicly available data for most cases.
MattSayar 7y ago
I believe ENOUGH people have these apps for this approach to be effective. What I don't understand about this article is that the author assumes the data has to flow through a government entity. I don't see why the company holding your data, eg Google, can't just have their own pandemic-tracking analytics that they can publish for everybody, including the government.
- raphlinus 7y ago
  Among other things, to be most effective there has to be two-way information flow with public health authorities who do contact tracing. When somebody is found to be positive, that info needs to propagate into the app and through the likely-spread network. I believe that simply cannot be done by private entities under the framework of existing health privacy regulation. Similarly, when the tracking system identifies someone as high risk, they need to be referred to testing by public health at the least. It also makes sense that a high risk person be isolated or quarantined, and it's possible the benefits of enforcing that through police outweigh the risks. If so, that's clearly a government function, not something that can be done by Google.

ForHackernews 7y ago

That doesn't matter because your phone carrier is already tracking you and selling that data, regardless of what apps you use or don't use.

rowanG077 7y ago
I hardly believe phone carriers are cracking TLS en masse.
- kichik 7y ago
  They don't need to crack TLS to get your location. And on top of that, they can sell SNI information.
  - rowanG077 7y ago
    SNI information is really, really limited though. Besides physical location tracking has been possible since the existence of phones. That's nothing new.
- AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  They don't need to. Your IMEI and IMSI is enough to keep you tracked. Personal attribution doesn't require much third party publicly available data for most cases.

MattSayar 7y ago

I believe ENOUGH people have these apps for this approach to be effective. What I don't understand about this article is that the author assumes the data has to flow through a government entity. I don't see why the company holding your data, eg Google, can't just have their own pandemic-tracking analytics that they can publish for everybody, including the government.

raphlinus 7y ago
Among other things, to be most effective there has to be two-way information flow with public health authorities who do contact tracing. When somebody is found to be positive, that info needs to propagate into the app and through the likely-spread network. I believe that simply cannot be done by private entities under the framework of existing health privacy regulation. Similarly, when the tracking system identifies someone as high risk, they need to be referred to testing by public health at the least. It also makes sense that a high risk person be isolated or quarantined, and it's possible the benefits of enforcing that through police outweigh the risks. If so, that's clearly a government function, not something that can be done by Google.