13 ms·

Google Apple Contact Tracing (GACT): a wolf in sheep’s clothes?

229 points by jrepinc 7y ago

wheelerwj 7y ago
Google Contact Tracing is a wolf in wolf's clothes.
- izacus 7y ago
  Why did you remove Apple from that sentence?
  - wheelerwj 7y ago
    Jury is still out on Apple, advertising isn't their primary source of revenue and they have a much better track record on privacy than Google. Verdict is definitely in on Google though. Anyone willing to give this level of power and data to Google is like sending your children to a daycare run by pedophiles. Sure, you might make it work and earn a paycheck but you're coming back home to a mess that probably can't be undone.
mister_hn 7y ago
Really awful, this is the true incarnation of 1984 of George Orwell
- ghostDancer 7y ago
  Mixed with "Brave New World" .
kylehotchkiss 7y ago
Silent pocket sales will definitely see an increase from this.
- tyingq 7y ago
  I assume that's some sort of "Faraday bag" for your phone?
- ezequiel-garzon 7y ago
  Thanks for the reference, I didn’t know about that [1]. Wouldn’t you achieve the same result by turning on airplane mode? I guess it should be straightforward to check whether there are any signals when it is activated. Once you need to be online you must disable airplane mode, true, but you also must take your phone out of the silent pocket, no? At that point you “lost”. [1] https://silent-pocket.com/ https://silent-pocket.com/
  - threeseed 7y ago
    You "lost" the second your phone obtains a mobile phone signal. At that point the telco can roughly triangulate your position using the base stations that you're connected to. And determine who is nearby to you. And better not tell the author of this article but this data has been made available to authorities for decades.
    - jka 7y ago
      > And better not tell the author of this article but this data has been made available to authorities for decades. Sometimes people can surprise us; the author is least somewhat familiar with GSM networks, and perhaps you'd both enjoy a learning experience if you're able to share any additional information you have with them.
    - fourthark 7y ago
      It is very rough though. Like “with 60% probability we think these two people are on the same block”. Totally oversold technology.
    - kylehotchkiss 7y ago
      My worry is more that there will be an exploit for Android that will collect all those Bluetooth IDs and geolocations and upload them somewhere that somebody could use nefariously. Not saying that telcos have shown any moral high ground with location data, even Google has this level of location tracking enabled for a considerable amount of people. I'm most worried about an Elasticsearch instance cropping up where somebody's bluetooth ID can be used to see how they get to work, etc. Faraday cage bag for phone seems like a reasonable solution.
pfalafel 7y ago
A very well written article this is.
jka 7y ago
This is clearly a highly-technical project by teams at both Google and Apple, and presumably those teams have social overlap with the userbase here on Hacker News. The risks raised by this article appear credible and worthy of consideration. It'll be interesting to see whether Google and Apple do openly respond to any of the specific concerns raised by the privacy and security community - for exmaple, whether the functionality will be time-limited to the duration of COVID-19. Google and Apple would gain huge potential leverage over nations worldwide if they retain the sole ability to offer and withdraw the functionality and to vet the applications that are allowed to use it.
- threeseed 7y ago
  > Google and Apple would gain huge potential leverage over nations worldwide You do understand that Apple/Google are not in charge of the world. They operate within each country based on the laws that each government puts in place. It would be trivial for any country to force this functionality to be on/off and dictate which apps it can be used with.
  - jka 7y ago
    For nations with the technical & legal staff and time required to review, address and negotiate updated legal terms with Google and Apple, that may be true. Since you sound familiar with the situation, can you provide a link/reference to evidence of a country trivially changing the behaviour of an operating-system level feature like GACT after it has been deployed?
    - chefkoch 7y ago
      There was a special Windows version for the EU.
      - jka 7y ago
        Thank you. Are you referring to the "Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities" case[1]? (lodged in 2004, resolved in 2007 - and led to the release of a version of Windows without Windows Media Player installed-by-default) [1] - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0201 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62...
threeseed 7y ago
Everything in this article is completely illogical and baseless. We can't trust Apple/Google to manage the anonymous data behind Contract Tracing but we can for our photos, phone calls, messages, web history, app data and GPS locations. And we have to be fearful because this anonymous data is somehow going to be linked by Apple/Google to real persons and used for mass surveillance. But yet they could have done this for years without needing GACT as an excuse.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Right. They've done the exact same tracing for years as part of the "Find my phone" feature, but now it becomes problematic when it's used to mitigate a pandemic outbreak? That makes zero sense.
  - threeseed 7y ago
    In fact pretty sure Apple has already implemented this functionality for their upcoming Apple Tags product. They have a patent on it and it works very similar to GACT i.e. by anonymously recording Bluetooth identifiers.
  - valleyer 7y ago
    The contact tracing stuff is not going to be based on location but rather on bluetooth beacons from nearby phones. I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. See https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/current/static/contact-tracing/pdf/ContactTracing-BluetoothSpecificationv1.1.pdf https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/cu...: "The Contact Tracing Bluetooth Specification does not use location for proximity detection. It strictly uses Bluetooth beaconing to detect proximity."
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      Don't be naïve. 1. the telcos have months - if not years - of LAC update data stored for every phone. They know where you sleep, who visits and where you work and shop; 2. they analyse the CDR for every call/SMS send and received (caller and receiving party cells) [look at your spam SMS with a jaundiced eye]; 3. they 'ping' thousands of phones* daily to trilaterate the location to metres (and/or A-GPS, TDOA, etc.) 4. they analyse the voice and data handover records. * The preferred way to do this with a veneer of deniability is for the authorities to add in a few phones into the known associates list of phones to be monitored in an otherwise legitimate drug or terrorist warrant. They judges will never know (and certainly don't ask).
egwor 7y ago
We may well really need this kind of tracing, and frankly it would be useful if we had had it since it would have and will save lives. Do I think it is sensible to raise concerns? Yes Am I disappointed that there aren't specific suggestions to address issues? Yes It is really easy to criticise and a lot more difficult to come up with solutions. As an expert in privacy, I'd have liked to see specific actionable items. e.g. 'Google/Apple must do X to ensure Y' or something saying 'Yes, this is really difficult and I don't know the answer'. This opens the floor for collaboration and for suggestions which feels a lot more constructive. What's key is that this is done right. If it isn't done right, there's a risk that no one will install it and we don't get the protection.
- blumomo 7y ago
  Get the protection from what?
riffraff 7y ago
The article states > GACT works much more reliably and extensively than any other system based on either GPS or mobile phone location data (based on cell towers) would be able to (under normal conditions). I want to stress this point because some people have responded to this threat saying that this is something companies like Google (using their GPS and WiFi names based location history tool) can already do for years. This is not the case. This type of contact tracing really brings it to another level. I don't see an explanation of why this would be so. Also, I see here as elsewhere a "what if one installs a malicious app that uses this?", but that argument applies even without the contact tracing framework. Still, there are some valid points which I hope can be considered by the spec authors.
- ohnope 7y ago
  I'd guess it's because GPS / cell phone tracking data rely on line of sight to towers / satellites, but GACT works on human-to-human proximity, and therefore data can survive offline locally until some point in the future when you get connection back. Also it seems the distance accuracy between human to human would be more accurate (via BT signal strength) than distance accuracy in a GPS / cell phone tower situation.
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    BT interference is much more common, and BT identifiers are much easier to reset. Cell phone tracking data does not rely on line of sight to towers, and for most people there is no offline for this to be relevant.
roca 7y ago
The article is entirely premised on Apple and Google not giving users control over whether tracing is enabled. Indeed, if they don't, that would be bad. If they do, the concerns in this article do not apply. > GACT creates a dormant functionality for mass surveillance, that can be turned on with the flip of a virtual switch at Apple or Google HQ. If you don't trust Google or Apple to do what they say they do then you need to stop using their OS and hardware. It is already the case that Google and Apple can push (more) surveillance into your device anytime. GACT does not change that. > Which makes the whole GACT platform a smokescreen really, as exactly the strong oversight would be required if the GACT platform was not there, and apps requested special access to Bluetooth to implement their own contact tracing technology. Not at all. Plausible advantages of GACT: a) Google and Apple don't have to evaluate the properties of each app's Bluetooth protocol; b) standardizing the protocol prevents Balkanization and makes tracing much more effective; c) Google and Apple are likely to implement it better. Another problem with this article is that the criticism is not constructive. If we believe the conclusions of the article, then what? Is there a better way to leverage smartphones for contact tracing? Or should we abjure smartphone-powered contact tracing? Doing what instead? "This sucks" without comparing it to alternatives is not actionable.
- jka 7y ago
  I do agree that more constructive feedback on possible routes forward would be useful. Although it's not stated by the author, one simple and low-cost approach is to take more time for further discussion and review before accepting deployment of a system like this. To those who might argue that we "don't have time to delay" and need to rush this functionality out, then I would respond that a rushed solution can often be worse than doing nothing -- especially if there is no easy way to roll it back. Therefore my personal suggestions would either be to take more pause before accepting and deploying a single solution like this, or to enact stringent and specific time bounds on the rollout.
  - roca 7y ago
    > To those who might argue that we "don't have time to delay" and need to rush this functionality out, then I would respond that a rushed solution can often be worse than doing nothing -- especially if there is no easy way to roll it back. That is a reality-independent objection that can apply in any situation and delay anything indefinitely. Lots of experts say that a robust digital contact-tracing solution (as part of a multipronged contact-tracing effort) could provide big health and economic benefits, the sooner the better. That doesn't mean we should have no discussion and review, but it does mean we should expedite them. We have at least a month before Google and Apple start rolling out their stuff, let's make the most of it.
rdxm 7y ago
Privacy battle was lost long, long ago. Only beachhead left is end to end crypto, and that's all but lost now too (depending on what country you happen to live in).
krcz 7y ago
While it is important to keep Apple and Google under scrutiny and demand transparency, this blogpost is mostly FUD based on silent assumptions contradicting descriptions of the protocol and implementation. > ensuring that all users of a modern iPhone or Android smartphone will be tracked as soon as they accept the OS update. (Again, to be clear: this happens already even if you decide not to install a contact tracing app!) It is unclear yet how consent is handled, whether there will be OS settings allowing one to switch on or off contact tracing, what the default will be. I don't think that's correct: you can always disable Bluetooth. Moreover broadcasting, if I understand the documentation correctly, Google and Apple will be providing just general framework: no ID broadcasting will happen until a tracking app is installed. But even if it did, if the tracking keys are not published, it doesn't affect privacy more that Bluetooth MAC address. > In other words, a malicious app could act as if the user is infected (in a way that is unnoticeable to the user) and extract the daily tracing keys and upload them to the server surreptitiously. That's true for decentralized tracking not using Google's framework as well. > This means the technology is available all the time, for all kinds of applications. In Android ecosystem Bluetooth is available for all kinds of applications too. There is a permissions subsystem that can be applied in both cases. Everything that Google / Apple Contact Tracing allows is already possible in Android. What it provides is a common standard, implementation, and iOS background Bluetooth capabilities.
- pfalafel 7y ago
  > you can always disable Bluetooth "To improve device experience, apps and services can still scan for nearby devices at any time, even when Bluetooth is off."
  - krcz 7y ago
    It is not COVID tracking specific, is it? So no change here either, I guess. And it seems you can turn it off as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22856030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22856030 , first comment.
    - pfalafel 7y ago
LatteLazy 7y ago
We are already under mass surveillance. The movements of your mobile phone (and everything you look at on it and what you type and who you communicate with and what you say and literally everything else you can think of) is available at the touch of a button to the government. It amazes me that people know this, but simultaneously don't know it?! The horse has bolted. It is gone. This urge to close doors to empty stables is really baffling to me. Really confusing. Why are people like this?
- naringas 7y ago
  I suppose your right. It doesn't seeem like this would add any new capabilities, it merely makes it easier/cheaper to have this kind of info.
- temporaryvector 7y ago
  The complaint isn't about the capability for mass surveillance, but the normalization of it, in the public mind. The capability has existed for a pretty long time, mostly out of the public eye, with occasional bursts of outrage when something caused it to become public, quickly forgotten afterwards. The capability is there, that genie is out of the bottle and nobody is going to put it back in. This isn't really about the technology, it's about the legal frameworks and social attitudes surrounding this capability that are worth talking about. Putting your hands up in defeat is not useful, and at this point probably neither is trying to prevent the technology from spreading. I am unsure what the solution is but the conversation needs to happen, and in all likelihood the end result of that conversation will be that corporations can't be trusted, just like they couldn't be trusted with food safety, for example, thus the FDA was created. What actions will be taken after that, I cannot predict.
  - LatteLazy 7y ago
    Sorry, I can see where you're coming from, I just think you're seeing a difference that isn't there. Specifically, these programs are totally normalised. We've had them for decades. They're supported by both parties in the the whole English speaking world. They've grown and expanded since they were revealed. At this point, total surveillance is normal. If anything, making an app for coronavirus is a good thing. It's easier to ignore this if it's done server side than if your carrier suddenly compels you to install some shitty slow battery draining app. I don't know if that qualifies as normalising it, but if it does and get people up in arms (or encourages even 1% of them to move to tor or signal or something) it's a good thing...
quezzle 7y ago
Do people really think the evil sorcerers at the twin towers of google and Apple rub their hands and laugh maniacally at the chance to build the ultimate evil privacy violation tool made only ever more fabulously evil because it is cloaked in goodness and brought as a gift to do good? These are not the nine rings for mortal kings. Do these people think that Larry and Sergei call a meeting of their most evil henchmen/project managers and say “gentlemen we have been given an outstanding chance to build something magnificently privacy violating! The coronavirus has driven people into our hands! We have waited so long for the chance to build such a system and because people think it’s for good, we’ll never be suspected! Go my minions, fly and build the dark software that will create us a secret and hidden trove of privacy data the likes of no other! Ha ha ha !” The privacy nuts really think this way.
- donohoe 7y ago
  No. I think you're jumping through a number of hoops to paint such a picture and discredit the post. The larger point for me is: this is great and helpful but in doing this we undermine privacy in other less obvious ways. These two quotes sum it all up for me: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
  - iso1210 7y ago
    > "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." One of the most misunderstood quotes on the internet
jmull 7y ago
I think this is the guy spreading FUD about this last week. He’s back spreading the FUD again this week. In his analysis he keeps ignoring that the flow of data is user-controlled. You need to opt-in to start this this, not just take an OS update. You also need to install an app and opt-in to allow it to use the data. Looking at the docs, the user also needs to approve at the point where an app receives the day and duration of contacts with an infected person. The only thing an app that you’ve already downloaded and opted-in to can do without further permission if report some contact with an infected person: not who or even which daily tracking ids, not when within the last 14 days. That won’t make a tool of mass surveillance. In places he acknowledges some of this, but his analysis proceeds as if the user-controlled nature of this doesn’t exist. This is deeply despicable. To the extent this guy and people like him can sow distrust of this platform, the weaker privacy-preserving covid19 contact tracing will be. That leads to more death and deeper economic ruin. There are various other problems with the analysis here: For example (just a selection) (1) this platform doesn’t require any more trust from Google and Apple than before. They’ve always been capable of turning your phone into a tool of mass surveillance, one much more effective than what this platform allows. (2) This system cant’t be turned into a tool of mass surveillance with the flip of a virtual switch at Apple or Google HQ. The software to expose the data won’t exist and so would have to be developed, tested and released. This guy is using a Hollywood movie level understanding of of software systems here. By the way, this guy is a professor with a specialty in privacy, so we know he knows better. That means all of this is malicious. I don’t know what he has to gain from pushing this FUD, but I do know he doesn’t mind getting a bunch of people killed or putting them through economic hardship. He should be using his expertise to do an honest and competent analysis of this system so that it could be improved.
- plantain 7y ago
  >You need to opt-in to start this this, not just take an OS update. >You also need to install an app and opt-in to allow it to use the data. In some countries (i.e. Australia) there was indications from the government the app could be mandatory. Subsequently walked back, but definitely a testing of the water...
  - 7y ago
IAmEveryone 7y ago
Google and Apple have come up with a somewhat ingenious scheme to mitigate this crisis while preserving privacy to the greatest possible extend. Self-appointed privacy experts aren’t going to do their cause any favors by reflexively finding/imagining fault with it. This article comes surprisingly close to literally “crying wolf”.
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  I do, however, fault Google & Apple for using the acronym "GACT" here. This is an RNA virus, so they should be able to come up with something that baxkcronyms to "GACU".
mtreis86 7y ago
I am well convinced this is just a cover for them to release the information they already are collecting without admitting they track everyone everywhere.
john_minsk 7y ago
Why they wouldn't say that this will be removed after pandemic is over is beyond my understanding.
aww_dang 7y ago
Do you really need a mobile phone? I spend enough time with the Internet in the home office. When I go out, I go to a mountain, forest or similar natural scene. A phone + Internet is just bringing what I seek to escape from with me. Just ditch the phone. Problem solved. Simple solutions are usually the best.
the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
I find these articles incredibly frustrating. If you go in with such a bias against the core concept then you run at risk of throwing out common sense in the process. The article can basically be summarized in two points: slippery slope and distrusting the platform holder. The former is best countered by looking over what the platform holders do, the latter has little to do with contact tracing. Apple already broadcasts proximity IDs for "find my". They were in fact heralded for their privacy first approach of that protocol until a few months ago. If you distrust your platform holder — which is fine — then be aware of what they are doing everywhere. This contact tracing protocol is by far the least worrisome thing these platforms do. In fact it largely just undoes a recent security improvement: MAC address rotation on Bluetooth. I have a bit problem with blog posts like this: they get circulated widely because they propagate the idea of the big platform holders building a surveillance system. It particularly problematic because it also plays into the hands of PEPP-PT and other efforts which actually do want to build a centralized contact tracing system and they need the platform holders to give more control over the bluetooth stack for that goal. Right now if apple and google were to go ahead with this implementation it would make it significantly harder to build a surveillance system than if certain other efforts would get their way.
- lr10g 7y ago
  You have a point, but 99.9% of consumers cannot follow your reasoning. What they will see is this: "Apple and Google selflessly implement a new magic technology to save our lives. This involves a tiny little bit of contact analysis. Who would possibly resist!" For these 99.9% the association "contact tracing good" has now been established. Companies will slowly go further and further in the future, because this event has established a precedence case. Anchoring bad things to positive events and outcomes works. Advertising works, not for HN readers but for the general population.
  - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
    > What they will see is this That is not at all what consumers see where I am (Austria). The news of Apple/Google doing contract tracing or supporting it has been very badly received here. People would rather trust a centralized system run by PEPP-PT than a decentralized system aided by Google/Apple.
tomger 7y ago
I realize governments, Apple, google already have access to my personal information and location. But I get the sense the public gets uncomfortable whenever we feel Governments are openly using our personal data on a large scale. Uncomfortable is the key for me. What scares me specifically about person proximity tracking is that in the current covid world it seems realistic that some governments will force people to enable it with seeming support from the public. Therefor eroding that uncomfortableness.
foolzcrow 7y ago
Track and control. Obey. Obey. Obey.
foolzcrow 7y ago
Time for a non google platform non apple phone platform.
waylandsmithers 7y ago
Before we do all this, couldn't Facebook just turn over the data that its users have already consented to sharing? I feel like that would get us a significant part of the way there.
DigitalSparky 7y ago
Contact Tracing is an awesome way to use the technology in theory, however, while a bit conspiracy theory-ish, it can also be used as trojan policy to allow unfettered warrantless access to location data, mass surveillance, and anything else they'd like that could be exfiltrated from user devices. Anything that has the ability to be exploited will be exploited for purposes. We have a generally healthy level of distrust for our governments as well as big business, and given the consistent evidence, I feel that's generally warranted. (Government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around). I would never opt-in for this nor would I trust it.
- lallysingh 7y ago
  I don't understand why they'd need to even tell us about it. Call it a security update and install on every phone.
  - kohtatsu 7y ago
    Pessimism is an indulgence. Don't go gentle into that good night.
  - fourthark 7y ago
    That’s what they are doing.
- feanaro 7y ago
  Indeed. This feels like the final straw that would make me drop (conventional) smartphones for good.
Mindwipe 7y ago
This is a very, very poor article with no real grasp of comparable threat vectors. It seems to feel having two centralised vendors for this is worse than just having arbitrary third parties, without explaining how this would be facilitated without any controls over this on an OS level, so it would then just be entirely dependent on all of your third party applications. That's a much bigger threat model than the OS vendor, requiring you to trust dozens of different vendors with different motivations to behave. The fact is really simple, if you don't trust your OS vendor that the APIs are as described then you're screwed and everything else is irrelevant. It is very clear the general public do not give a stuff.
kohtatsu 7y ago
I don't think it's absurd to forego all this fancy crap that triggers through walls, and instead have a cute, local-to-device, privacy respecting app for logging contacts and locations. Brought your mom some bread today? Log it in the app. Went to a grocery store after? Log it in the app. Every Sunday or something maybe check in with some of the people you got within physical proximity of, and try to investigate a bit if there were any known cases at your grocery store or such. If you were potentially in contact with Covid, maybe update the people you saw after it, or maybe just self isolate, or maybe both. Definitely do get in contact if you have symptoms, and ideally you could even alert the grocery store and they could post a notice somewhere people could easily find (ideally online) with when you visited and perhaps the likelihood of you having had it at that point. Sanitize your groceries too~ People pick things up and put them back, I imagine there are hundreds of cans and junk food wrappers sitting in stores across america right now with Covid on them. I really believe this is all doable with the stock iOS Reminders app and some discipline. But a standalone app would be nice; not-plaintext-in-the-cloud is kind of important at scale. Non-iCloud reminder lists were possible at one point. (Tangent but Reminders a misnomer imo, I vote renaming it to String Nest)
zxienin 7y ago
The very OS level baking in of GACT tells that intent is not to make this opt-in, in principle. Even if it is rolled out today as opt-in, the option stays open for a government to centrally enforce mandatory activation of tracking via Apple/Google
- iso1210 7y ago
  5 years ago you could turn off bluetooth and wifi in ios and it would stay off. Now it turns itself back on every day. It will roll out as opt in, then as opt-in but enabled-by-default, then the turn off will only be temporary rfid pocket seems to be the only solution.
linsomniac 7y ago
My high-level understanding of how it works is: Every 20m I generate a key, broadcast it and listen for and record others keys I hear around me. Periodically, I ask a server for a list of "infected" keys and compare those keys with what I've seen. If I get infected, I submit my key to the server. The "who's seen who" sounded like it was entirely done locally to your devices. Unless something nefarious is done under the covers, no central server gains access to the information correlation information. What am I missing here? It seems like this system preserves privacy. I exclude nefarious action above because if we believe Google or Apple are acting nefarious (which I understand many do), then they already be doing so at so many levels in our hardware and software that this is just a drop in the bucket.
linsomniac 7y ago
Personal opinion: I'm glad Google and Apple are working on this. Because a very likely possibility if they don't, is that the governments demand further access to devices, backdoors to software, and enhanced power related to data collection and use. Rationally, this would boil down to whether you trust your government or the tech companies more with this data, and opinions will vary. My, admittedly high level, review of this proposal is that it seems to have a good privacy design. As I understand it, the contact information never leaves your device.
yalogin 7y ago
This isn’t how you do privacy analysis. The author assumed stuff about stuff he doesn’t know and extrapolated on that. I was expecting some protocol analysis. Not sure who this is and if the individual usually does cryptanalysis or not. So we don’t know what their thoughts on the actual protocol are. Unfortunately I am worried this will be listed as a negative on the protocol by aggregators who are not technical.
hedora 7y ago
Simple question: Why doesn’t the following work? Say I work for a repressive regime. To do business in our economy (tag into subways, etc), you need to install an app with GACT enabled. Now, whenever we arrest a political opponent, we get their GACT device key, and flag all of their associates as political dissidents, and arrest them too. This seems like an invaluable tool for oppression.
- bryan_w 7y ago
  That app would have to be approved by Apple, which they wouldn't do
KKKKkkkk1 7y ago
I feel that Apple and Google are a bit coy when they claim their solution is opt-in only. Given that one super-spreader can infect a whole city, you need very comprehensive coverage to keep infections under control. It's as if these companies are winking at governments and saying: Hey, we've done our part, now it's on you to enact CCP-style policies to make sure that everyone has to opt-in before you're allowed to leave your hose.
diebeforei485 7y ago
I hope they consider adversarial use cases. Authoritarian countries may give fake test results to people they don't like in order to find their whereabouts for the past two weeks, for example. In the end, people should be in control and it should be obviously simple turn it off systemwide (not buried in Settings > Privacy > Location > System Services or whatever).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Why would someone evil do something in a comically complicated way instead of a simpler easier way.
topkai22 7y ago
The major question I have about smartphone based contact tracing is if it is effective, and if so how much more effective is it then existing techniques. Bluetooth based contact tracing could be a valuable tool in public health, but as many have opined it is also a significant sacrifice of privacy. Is there any data on the effectiveness of this sort of technology yet?
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  3brown1blue had a youtube video a few weeks ago, running simulations. The effect of contact tracing and testing is significant. Granted, it's just a simulation, but the efficacy of contact tracing + testing is quite powerful.
  - topkai22 7y ago
    Absolutely, the efficacy of contact tracing has been known for a long time. That being said, we’ve also been doing interview based contact tracing for a long time. The current IT systems for doing contact tracing leave a lot to be desired (I did a trade study a couple months ago), but public health agencies have procedures for doing contact tracing without invading privacy nearly as much as the proposed platform. Preemptively using smartphone interactions to capture information world definitely be cheaper than the current manual processes but I want to know how much it improves efficacy before nationwide/global deployment of such an invasive technology. Until then, hire contact tracer’s. There are a lot of unemployed people.
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      Pardon my ignorance, but how does a human do contact tracing? Start calling people to find out if they shopped somewhere recently with a known exposure?
      - topkai22 7y ago
        You interview the identified case to determine who they’ve been in close contact with for the last several days, get their contact info, and then test them. Repeat for any new positive contacts. If they were in any public areas you can pull purchase records for any one who also was in the area at the same time.
technimad 7y ago
Who do you trust more to build a complex decentralized anonymous tracing system? Which will be subject to the toughest privacy and security audit ever seen. A random tracing app developer, or an alliance of the biggest competing players in this field?
zepto 7y ago
Is there a reason why this framework can’t be open sourced by Google and Apple? I’m not suggesting that it be developed by the community, but it seems like visibility into the source could give some assurance of what it is doing and potential weakpoints.
cheaprentalyeti 7y ago
A couple points that have probably already been made by someone else: * I suspect Google and Apple probably did a lot of contact tracing/traffic analysis type stuff that they don't want public... and * Contact tracing in the US might have been useful on January 15th but right now it's probably pointless.
rising-sky 7y ago
> GACT works much more reliably and extensively than any other system based on either GPS or mobile phone location data (based on cell towers) would be able to (under normal conditions). I want to stress this point because some people have responded to this threat saying that this is something companies like Google (using their GPS and WiFi names based location history tool) can already do for years. This is not the case. This type of contact tracing really brings it to another level I'm curious about this, the author says they would like to "stress this point", but then provides no analysis or evidence to impress this... anyone have any buttressing points?

229 points by jrepinc 7y ago

wheelerwj 7y ago

Google Contact Tracing is a wolf in wolf's clothes.

izacus 7y ago
Why did you remove Apple from that sentence?
- wheelerwj 7y ago
  Jury is still out on Apple, advertising isn't their primary source of revenue and they have a much better track record on privacy than Google. Verdict is definitely in on Google though. Anyone willing to give this level of power and data to Google is like sending your children to a daycare run by pedophiles. Sure, you might make it work and earn a paycheck but you're coming back home to a mess that probably can't be undone.

mister_hn 7y ago

Really awful, this is the true incarnation of 1984 of George Orwell

ghostDancer 7y ago
Mixed with "Brave New World" .

kylehotchkiss 7y ago

Silent pocket sales will definitely see an increase from this.

tyingq 7y ago
I assume that's some sort of "Faraday bag" for your phone?
ezequiel-garzon 7y ago
Thanks for the reference, I didn’t know about that [1]. Wouldn’t you achieve the same result by turning on airplane mode? I guess it should be straightforward to check whether there are any signals when it is activated. Once you need to be online you must disable airplane mode, true, but you also must take your phone out of the silent pocket, no? At that point you “lost”. [1] https://silent-pocket.com/ https://silent-pocket.com/
- threeseed 7y ago
  You "lost" the second your phone obtains a mobile phone signal. At that point the telco can roughly triangulate your position using the base stations that you're connected to. And determine who is nearby to you. And better not tell the author of this article but this data has been made available to authorities for decades.
  - jka 7y ago
    > And better not tell the author of this article but this data has been made available to authorities for decades. Sometimes people can surprise us; the author is least somewhat familiar with GSM networks, and perhaps you'd both enjoy a learning experience if you're able to share any additional information you have with them.
  - fourthark 7y ago
    It is very rough though. Like “with 60% probability we think these two people are on the same block”. Totally oversold technology.
  - kylehotchkiss 7y ago
    My worry is more that there will be an exploit for Android that will collect all those Bluetooth IDs and geolocations and upload them somewhere that somebody could use nefariously. Not saying that telcos have shown any moral high ground with location data, even Google has this level of location tracking enabled for a considerable amount of people. I'm most worried about an Elasticsearch instance cropping up where somebody's bluetooth ID can be used to see how they get to work, etc. Faraday cage bag for phone seems like a reasonable solution.

pfalafel 7y ago

A very well written article this is.

jka 7y ago

This is clearly a highly-technical project by teams at both Google and Apple, and presumably those teams have social overlap with the userbase here on Hacker News. The risks raised by this article appear credible and worthy of consideration. It'll be interesting to see whether Google and Apple do openly respond to any of the specific concerns raised by the privacy and security community - for exmaple, whether the functionality will be time-limited to the duration of COVID-19. Google and Apple would gain huge potential leverage over nations worldwide if they retain the sole ability to offer and withdraw the functionality and to vet the applications that are allowed to use it.

threeseed 7y ago
> Google and Apple would gain huge potential leverage over nations worldwide You do understand that Apple/Google are not in charge of the world. They operate within each country based on the laws that each government puts in place. It would be trivial for any country to force this functionality to be on/off and dictate which apps it can be used with.
- jka 7y ago
  For nations with the technical & legal staff and time required to review, address and negotiate updated legal terms with Google and Apple, that may be true. Since you sound familiar with the situation, can you provide a link/reference to evidence of a country trivially changing the behaviour of an operating-system level feature like GACT after it has been deployed?
  - chefkoch 7y ago
    There was a special Windows version for the EU.
    - jka 7y ago
      Thank you. Are you referring to the "Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities" case[1]? (lodged in 2004, resolved in 2007 - and led to the release of a version of Windows without Windows Media Player installed-by-default) [1] - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0201 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62...

threeseed 7y ago

Everything in this article is completely illogical and baseless. We can't trust Apple/Google to manage the anonymous data behind Contract Tracing but we can for our photos, phone calls, messages, web history, app data and GPS locations. And we have to be fearful because this anonymous data is somehow going to be linked by Apple/Google to real persons and used for mass surveillance. But yet they could have done this for years without needing GACT as an excuse.

zozbot234 7y ago
Right. They've done the exact same tracing for years as part of the "Find my phone" feature, but now it becomes problematic when it's used to mitigate a pandemic outbreak? That makes zero sense.
- threeseed 7y ago
  In fact pretty sure Apple has already implemented this functionality for their upcoming Apple Tags product. They have a patent on it and it works very similar to GACT i.e. by anonymously recording Bluetooth identifiers.
- valleyer 7y ago
  The contact tracing stuff is not going to be based on location but rather on bluetooth beacons from nearby phones. I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. See https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/current/static/contact-tracing/pdf/ContactTracing-BluetoothSpecificationv1.1.pdf https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/cu...: "The Contact Tracing Bluetooth Specification does not use location for proximity detection. It strictly uses Bluetooth beaconing to detect proximity."
  - pinkfoot 7y ago
    Don't be naïve. 1. the telcos have months - if not years - of LAC update data stored for every phone. They know where you sleep, who visits and where you work and shop; 2. they analyse the CDR for every call/SMS send and received (caller and receiving party cells) [look at your spam SMS with a jaundiced eye]; 3. they 'ping' thousands of phones* daily to trilaterate the location to metres (and/or A-GPS, TDOA, etc.) 4. they analyse the voice and data handover records. * The preferred way to do this with a veneer of deniability is for the authorities to add in a few phones into the known associates list of phones to be monitored in an otherwise legitimate drug or terrorist warrant. They judges will never know (and certainly don't ask).

egwor 7y ago

We may well really need this kind of tracing, and frankly it would be useful if we had had it since it would have and will save lives. Do I think it is sensible to raise concerns? Yes Am I disappointed that there aren't specific suggestions to address issues? Yes It is really easy to criticise and a lot more difficult to come up with solutions. As an expert in privacy, I'd have liked to see specific actionable items. e.g. 'Google/Apple must do X to ensure Y' or something saying 'Yes, this is really difficult and I don't know the answer'. This opens the floor for collaboration and for suggestions which feels a lot more constructive. What's key is that this is done right. If it isn't done right, there's a risk that no one will install it and we don't get the protection.

blumomo 7y ago
Get the protection from what?

riffraff 7y ago

The article states > GACT works much more reliably and extensively than any other system based on either GPS or mobile phone location data (based on cell towers) would be able to (under normal conditions). I want to stress this point because some people have responded to this threat saying that this is something companies like Google (using their GPS and WiFi names based location history tool) can already do for years. This is not the case. This type of contact tracing really brings it to another level. I don't see an explanation of why this would be so. Also, I see here as elsewhere a "what if one installs a malicious app that uses this?", but that argument applies even without the contact tracing framework. Still, there are some valid points which I hope can be considered by the spec authors.

ohnope 7y ago
I'd guess it's because GPS / cell phone tracking data rely on line of sight to towers / satellites, but GACT works on human-to-human proximity, and therefore data can survive offline locally until some point in the future when you get connection back. Also it seems the distance accuracy between human to human would be more accurate (via BT signal strength) than distance accuracy in a GPS / cell phone tower situation.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  BT interference is much more common, and BT identifiers are much easier to reset. Cell phone tracking data does not rely on line of sight to towers, and for most people there is no offline for this to be relevant.

roca 7y ago

The article is entirely premised on Apple and Google not giving users control over whether tracing is enabled. Indeed, if they don't, that would be bad. If they do, the concerns in this article do not apply. > GACT creates a dormant functionality for mass surveillance, that can be turned on with the flip of a virtual switch at Apple or Google HQ. If you don't trust Google or Apple to do what they say they do then you need to stop using their OS and hardware. It is already the case that Google and Apple can push (more) surveillance into your device anytime. GACT does not change that. > Which makes the whole GACT platform a smokescreen really, as exactly the strong oversight would be required if the GACT platform was not there, and apps requested special access to Bluetooth to implement their own contact tracing technology. Not at all. Plausible advantages of GACT: a) Google and Apple don't have to evaluate the properties of each app's Bluetooth protocol; b) standardizing the protocol prevents Balkanization and makes tracing much more effective; c) Google and Apple are likely to implement it better. Another problem with this article is that the criticism is not constructive. If we believe the conclusions of the article, then what? Is there a better way to leverage smartphones for contact tracing? Or should we abjure smartphone-powered contact tracing? Doing what instead? "This sucks" without comparing it to alternatives is not actionable.

jka 7y ago
I do agree that more constructive feedback on possible routes forward would be useful. Although it's not stated by the author, one simple and low-cost approach is to take more time for further discussion and review before accepting deployment of a system like this. To those who might argue that we "don't have time to delay" and need to rush this functionality out, then I would respond that a rushed solution can often be worse than doing nothing -- especially if there is no easy way to roll it back. Therefore my personal suggestions would either be to take more pause before accepting and deploying a single solution like this, or to enact stringent and specific time bounds on the rollout.
- roca 7y ago
  > To those who might argue that we "don't have time to delay" and need to rush this functionality out, then I would respond that a rushed solution can often be worse than doing nothing -- especially if there is no easy way to roll it back. That is a reality-independent objection that can apply in any situation and delay anything indefinitely. Lots of experts say that a robust digital contact-tracing solution (as part of a multipronged contact-tracing effort) could provide big health and economic benefits, the sooner the better. That doesn't mean we should have no discussion and review, but it does mean we should expedite them. We have at least a month before Google and Apple start rolling out their stuff, let's make the most of it.

rdxm 7y ago

Privacy battle was lost long, long ago. Only beachhead left is end to end crypto, and that's all but lost now too (depending on what country you happen to live in).

krcz 7y ago

While it is important to keep Apple and Google under scrutiny and demand transparency, this blogpost is mostly FUD based on silent assumptions contradicting descriptions of the protocol and implementation. > ensuring that all users of a modern iPhone or Android smartphone will be tracked as soon as they accept the OS update. (Again, to be clear: this happens already even if you decide not to install a contact tracing app!) It is unclear yet how consent is handled, whether there will be OS settings allowing one to switch on or off contact tracing, what the default will be. I don't think that's correct: you can always disable Bluetooth. Moreover broadcasting, if I understand the documentation correctly, Google and Apple will be providing just general framework: no ID broadcasting will happen until a tracking app is installed. But even if it did, if the tracking keys are not published, it doesn't affect privacy more that Bluetooth MAC address. > In other words, a malicious app could act as if the user is infected (in a way that is unnoticeable to the user) and extract the daily tracing keys and upload them to the server surreptitiously. That's true for decentralized tracking not using Google's framework as well. > This means the technology is available all the time, for all kinds of applications. In Android ecosystem Bluetooth is available for all kinds of applications too. There is a permissions subsystem that can be applied in both cases. Everything that Google / Apple Contact Tracing allows is already possible in Android. What it provides is a common standard, implementation, and iOS background Bluetooth capabilities.

pfalafel 7y ago
> you can always disable Bluetooth "To improve device experience, apps and services can still scan for nearby devices at any time, even when Bluetooth is off."
- krcz 7y ago
  It is not COVID tracking specific, is it? So no change here either, I guess. And it seems you can turn it off as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22856030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22856030 , first comment.
  - pfalafel 7y ago

LatteLazy 7y ago

We are already under mass surveillance. The movements of your mobile phone (and everything you look at on it and what you type and who you communicate with and what you say and literally everything else you can think of) is available at the touch of a button to the government. It amazes me that people know this, but simultaneously don't know it?! The horse has bolted. It is gone. This urge to close doors to empty stables is really baffling to me. Really confusing. Why are people like this?

naringas 7y ago
I suppose your right. It doesn't seeem like this would add any new capabilities, it merely makes it easier/cheaper to have this kind of info.
temporaryvector 7y ago
The complaint isn't about the capability for mass surveillance, but the normalization of it, in the public mind. The capability has existed for a pretty long time, mostly out of the public eye, with occasional bursts of outrage when something caused it to become public, quickly forgotten afterwards. The capability is there, that genie is out of the bottle and nobody is going to put it back in. This isn't really about the technology, it's about the legal frameworks and social attitudes surrounding this capability that are worth talking about. Putting your hands up in defeat is not useful, and at this point probably neither is trying to prevent the technology from spreading. I am unsure what the solution is but the conversation needs to happen, and in all likelihood the end result of that conversation will be that corporations can't be trusted, just like they couldn't be trusted with food safety, for example, thus the FDA was created. What actions will be taken after that, I cannot predict.
- LatteLazy 7y ago
  Sorry, I can see where you're coming from, I just think you're seeing a difference that isn't there. Specifically, these programs are totally normalised. We've had them for decades. They're supported by both parties in the the whole English speaking world. They've grown and expanded since they were revealed. At this point, total surveillance is normal. If anything, making an app for coronavirus is a good thing. It's easier to ignore this if it's done server side than if your carrier suddenly compels you to install some shitty slow battery draining app. I don't know if that qualifies as normalising it, but if it does and get people up in arms (or encourages even 1% of them to move to tor or signal or something) it's a good thing...

quezzle 7y ago

Do people really think the evil sorcerers at the twin towers of google and Apple rub their hands and laugh maniacally at the chance to build the ultimate evil privacy violation tool made only ever more fabulously evil because it is cloaked in goodness and brought as a gift to do good? These are not the nine rings for mortal kings. Do these people think that Larry and Sergei call a meeting of their most evil henchmen/project managers and say “gentlemen we have been given an outstanding chance to build something magnificently privacy violating! The coronavirus has driven people into our hands! We have waited so long for the chance to build such a system and because people think it’s for good, we’ll never be suspected! Go my minions, fly and build the dark software that will create us a secret and hidden trove of privacy data the likes of no other! Ha ha ha !” The privacy nuts really think this way.

donohoe 7y ago
No. I think you're jumping through a number of hoops to paint such a picture and discredit the post. The larger point for me is: this is great and helpful but in doing this we undermine privacy in other less obvious ways. These two quotes sum it all up for me: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
- iso1210 7y ago
  > "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." One of the most misunderstood quotes on the internet

jmull 7y ago

I think this is the guy spreading FUD about this last week. He’s back spreading the FUD again this week. In his analysis he keeps ignoring that the flow of data is user-controlled. You need to opt-in to start this this, not just take an OS update. You also need to install an app and opt-in to allow it to use the data. Looking at the docs, the user also needs to approve at the point where an app receives the day and duration of contacts with an infected person. The only thing an app that you’ve already downloaded and opted-in to can do without further permission if report some contact with an infected person: not who or even which daily tracking ids, not when within the last 14 days. That won’t make a tool of mass surveillance. In places he acknowledges some of this, but his analysis proceeds as if the user-controlled nature of this doesn’t exist. This is deeply despicable. To the extent this guy and people like him can sow distrust of this platform, the weaker privacy-preserving covid19 contact tracing will be. That leads to more death and deeper economic ruin. There are various other problems with the analysis here: For example (just a selection) (1) this platform doesn’t require any more trust from Google and Apple than before. They’ve always been capable of turning your phone into a tool of mass surveillance, one much more effective than what this platform allows. (2) This system cant’t be turned into a tool of mass surveillance with the flip of a virtual switch at Apple or Google HQ. The software to expose the data won’t exist and so would have to be developed, tested and released. This guy is using a Hollywood movie level understanding of of software systems here. By the way, this guy is a professor with a specialty in privacy, so we know he knows better. That means all of this is malicious. I don’t know what he has to gain from pushing this FUD, but I do know he doesn’t mind getting a bunch of people killed or putting them through economic hardship. He should be using his expertise to do an honest and competent analysis of this system so that it could be improved.

plantain 7y ago
>You need to opt-in to start this this, not just take an OS update. >You also need to install an app and opt-in to allow it to use the data. In some countries (i.e. Australia) there was indications from the government the app could be mandatory. Subsequently walked back, but definitely a testing of the water...
- 7y ago

IAmEveryone 7y ago

Google and Apple have come up with a somewhat ingenious scheme to mitigate this crisis while preserving privacy to the greatest possible extend. Self-appointed privacy experts aren’t going to do their cause any favors by reflexively finding/imagining fault with it. This article comes surprisingly close to literally “crying wolf”.

IAmEveryone 7y ago
I do, however, fault Google & Apple for using the acronym "GACT" here. This is an RNA virus, so they should be able to come up with something that baxkcronyms to "GACU".

mtreis86 7y ago

I am well convinced this is just a cover for them to release the information they already are collecting without admitting they track everyone everywhere.

john_minsk 7y ago

Why they wouldn't say that this will be removed after pandemic is over is beyond my understanding.

aww_dang 7y ago

Do you really need a mobile phone? I spend enough time with the Internet in the home office. When I go out, I go to a mountain, forest or similar natural scene. A phone + Internet is just bringing what I seek to escape from with me. Just ditch the phone. Problem solved. Simple solutions are usually the best.

the_mitsuhiko 7y ago

I find these articles incredibly frustrating. If you go in with such a bias against the core concept then you run at risk of throwing out common sense in the process. The article can basically be summarized in two points: slippery slope and distrusting the platform holder. The former is best countered by looking over what the platform holders do, the latter has little to do with contact tracing. Apple already broadcasts proximity IDs for "find my". They were in fact heralded for their privacy first approach of that protocol until a few months ago. If you distrust your platform holder — which is fine — then be aware of what they are doing everywhere. This contact tracing protocol is by far the least worrisome thing these platforms do. In fact it largely just undoes a recent security improvement: MAC address rotation on Bluetooth. I have a bit problem with blog posts like this: they get circulated widely because they propagate the idea of the big platform holders building a surveillance system. It particularly problematic because it also plays into the hands of PEPP-PT and other efforts which actually do want to build a centralized contact tracing system and they need the platform holders to give more control over the bluetooth stack for that goal. Right now if apple and google were to go ahead with this implementation it would make it significantly harder to build a surveillance system than if certain other efforts would get their way.

lr10g 7y ago
You have a point, but 99.9% of consumers cannot follow your reasoning. What they will see is this: "Apple and Google selflessly implement a new magic technology to save our lives. This involves a tiny little bit of contact analysis. Who would possibly resist!" For these 99.9% the association "contact tracing good" has now been established. Companies will slowly go further and further in the future, because this event has established a precedence case. Anchoring bad things to positive events and outcomes works. Advertising works, not for HN readers but for the general population.
- the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
  > What they will see is this That is not at all what consumers see where I am (Austria). The news of Apple/Google doing contract tracing or supporting it has been very badly received here. People would rather trust a centralized system run by PEPP-PT than a decentralized system aided by Google/Apple.

tomger 7y ago

I realize governments, Apple, google already have access to my personal information and location. But I get the sense the public gets uncomfortable whenever we feel Governments are openly using our personal data on a large scale. Uncomfortable is the key for me. What scares me specifically about person proximity tracking is that in the current covid world it seems realistic that some governments will force people to enable it with seeming support from the public. Therefor eroding that uncomfortableness.

foolzcrow 7y ago

Track and control. Obey. Obey. Obey.

foolzcrow 7y ago

Time for a non google platform non apple phone platform.

waylandsmithers 7y ago

Before we do all this, couldn't Facebook just turn over the data that its users have already consented to sharing? I feel like that would get us a significant part of the way there.

DigitalSparky 7y ago

Contact Tracing is an awesome way to use the technology in theory, however, while a bit conspiracy theory-ish, it can also be used as trojan policy to allow unfettered warrantless access to location data, mass surveillance, and anything else they'd like that could be exfiltrated from user devices. Anything that has the ability to be exploited will be exploited for purposes. We have a generally healthy level of distrust for our governments as well as big business, and given the consistent evidence, I feel that's generally warranted. (Government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around). I would never opt-in for this nor would I trust it.

lallysingh 7y ago
I don't understand why they'd need to even tell us about it. Call it a security update and install on every phone.
- kohtatsu 7y ago
  Pessimism is an indulgence. Don't go gentle into that good night.
- fourthark 7y ago
  That’s what they are doing.
feanaro 7y ago
Indeed. This feels like the final straw that would make me drop (conventional) smartphones for good.

Mindwipe 7y ago

This is a very, very poor article with no real grasp of comparable threat vectors. It seems to feel having two centralised vendors for this is worse than just having arbitrary third parties, without explaining how this would be facilitated without any controls over this on an OS level, so it would then just be entirely dependent on all of your third party applications. That's a much bigger threat model than the OS vendor, requiring you to trust dozens of different vendors with different motivations to behave. The fact is really simple, if you don't trust your OS vendor that the APIs are as described then you're screwed and everything else is irrelevant. It is very clear the general public do not give a stuff.

kohtatsu 7y ago

I don't think it's absurd to forego all this fancy crap that triggers through walls, and instead have a cute, local-to-device, privacy respecting app for logging contacts and locations. Brought your mom some bread today? Log it in the app. Went to a grocery store after? Log it in the app. Every Sunday or something maybe check in with some of the people you got within physical proximity of, and try to investigate a bit if there were any known cases at your grocery store or such. If you were potentially in contact with Covid, maybe update the people you saw after it, or maybe just self isolate, or maybe both. Definitely do get in contact if you have symptoms, and ideally you could even alert the grocery store and they could post a notice somewhere people could easily find (ideally online) with when you visited and perhaps the likelihood of you having had it at that point. Sanitize your groceries too~ People pick things up and put them back, I imagine there are hundreds of cans and junk food wrappers sitting in stores across america right now with Covid on them. I really believe this is all doable with the stock iOS Reminders app and some discipline. But a standalone app would be nice; not-plaintext-in-the-cloud is kind of important at scale. Non-iCloud reminder lists were possible at one point. (Tangent but Reminders a misnomer imo, I vote renaming it to String Nest)

zxienin 7y ago

The very OS level baking in of GACT tells that intent is not to make this opt-in, in principle. Even if it is rolled out today as opt-in, the option stays open for a government to centrally enforce mandatory activation of tracking via Apple/Google

iso1210 7y ago
5 years ago you could turn off bluetooth and wifi in ios and it would stay off. Now it turns itself back on every day. It will roll out as opt in, then as opt-in but enabled-by-default, then the turn off will only be temporary rfid pocket seems to be the only solution.

linsomniac 7y ago

My high-level understanding of how it works is: Every 20m I generate a key, broadcast it and listen for and record others keys I hear around me. Periodically, I ask a server for a list of "infected" keys and compare those keys with what I've seen. If I get infected, I submit my key to the server. The "who's seen who" sounded like it was entirely done locally to your devices. Unless something nefarious is done under the covers, no central server gains access to the information correlation information. What am I missing here? It seems like this system preserves privacy. I exclude nefarious action above because if we believe Google or Apple are acting nefarious (which I understand many do), then they already be doing so at so many levels in our hardware and software that this is just a drop in the bucket.

linsomniac 7y ago

Personal opinion: I'm glad Google and Apple are working on this. Because a very likely possibility if they don't, is that the governments demand further access to devices, backdoors to software, and enhanced power related to data collection and use. Rationally, this would boil down to whether you trust your government or the tech companies more with this data, and opinions will vary. My, admittedly high level, review of this proposal is that it seems to have a good privacy design. As I understand it, the contact information never leaves your device.

yalogin 7y ago

This isn’t how you do privacy analysis. The author assumed stuff about stuff he doesn’t know and extrapolated on that. I was expecting some protocol analysis. Not sure who this is and if the individual usually does cryptanalysis or not. So we don’t know what their thoughts on the actual protocol are. Unfortunately I am worried this will be listed as a negative on the protocol by aggregators who are not technical.

hedora 7y ago

Simple question: Why doesn’t the following work? Say I work for a repressive regime. To do business in our economy (tag into subways, etc), you need to install an app with GACT enabled. Now, whenever we arrest a political opponent, we get their GACT device key, and flag all of their associates as political dissidents, and arrest them too. This seems like an invaluable tool for oppression.

bryan_w 7y ago
That app would have to be approved by Apple, which they wouldn't do

KKKKkkkk1 7y ago

I feel that Apple and Google are a bit coy when they claim their solution is opt-in only. Given that one super-spreader can infect a whole city, you need very comprehensive coverage to keep infections under control. It's as if these companies are winking at governments and saying: Hey, we've done our part, now it's on you to enact CCP-style policies to make sure that everyone has to opt-in before you're allowed to leave your hose.

diebeforei485 7y ago

I hope they consider adversarial use cases. Authoritarian countries may give fake test results to people they don't like in order to find their whereabouts for the past two weeks, for example. In the end, people should be in control and it should be obviously simple turn it off systemwide (not buried in Settings > Privacy > Location > System Services or whatever).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lonelappde 7y ago
Why would someone evil do something in a comically complicated way instead of a simpler easier way.

topkai22 7y ago

The major question I have about smartphone based contact tracing is if it is effective, and if so how much more effective is it then existing techniques. Bluetooth based contact tracing could be a valuable tool in public health, but as many have opined it is also a significant sacrifice of privacy. Is there any data on the effectiveness of this sort of technology yet?

edmundsauto 7y ago
3brown1blue had a youtube video a few weeks ago, running simulations. The effect of contact tracing and testing is significant. Granted, it's just a simulation, but the efficacy of contact tracing + testing is quite powerful.
- topkai22 7y ago
  Absolutely, the efficacy of contact tracing has been known for a long time. That being said, we’ve also been doing interview based contact tracing for a long time. The current IT systems for doing contact tracing leave a lot to be desired (I did a trade study a couple months ago), but public health agencies have procedures for doing contact tracing without invading privacy nearly as much as the proposed platform. Preemptively using smartphone interactions to capture information world definitely be cheaper than the current manual processes but I want to know how much it improves efficacy before nationwide/global deployment of such an invasive technology. Until then, hire contact tracer’s. There are a lot of unemployed people.
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    Pardon my ignorance, but how does a human do contact tracing? Start calling people to find out if they shopped somewhere recently with a known exposure?
    - topkai22 7y ago
      You interview the identified case to determine who they’ve been in close contact with for the last several days, get their contact info, and then test them. Repeat for any new positive contacts. If they were in any public areas you can pull purchase records for any one who also was in the area at the same time.

technimad 7y ago

Who do you trust more to build a complex decentralized anonymous tracing system? Which will be subject to the toughest privacy and security audit ever seen. A random tracing app developer, or an alliance of the biggest competing players in this field?

zepto 7y ago

Is there a reason why this framework can’t be open sourced by Google and Apple? I’m not suggesting that it be developed by the community, but it seems like visibility into the source could give some assurance of what it is doing and potential weakpoints.

cheaprentalyeti 7y ago

A couple points that have probably already been made by someone else: * I suspect Google and Apple probably did a lot of contact tracing/traffic analysis type stuff that they don't want public... and * Contact tracing in the US might have been useful on January 15th but right now it's probably pointless.

rising-sky 7y ago

> GACT works much more reliably and extensively than any other system based on either GPS or mobile phone location data (based on cell towers) would be able to (under normal conditions). I want to stress this point because some people have responded to this threat saying that this is something companies like Google (using their GPS and WiFi names based location history tool) can already do for years. This is not the case. This type of contact tracing really brings it to another level I'm curious about this, the author says they would like to "stress this point", but then provides no analysis or evidence to impress this... anyone have any buttressing points?