3 ms·
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 tower
by 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 agoI'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 agoBT 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.