8 ms·

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

by 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.
  - jka 7y ago
    Thank you; fair advice reasonably stated. My primary concern is related to maintaining pleasant social interaction and a reasonable balance of power on a time horizon of five years and beyond. To me it's hard to imagine that a continuous digital record of human interactions that is subject to a proprietary protocol and implementation would be the safest situation to end up in.
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  > one simple and low-cost approach is to take more time for further discussion and review before accepting deployment of a system like this. That's "simple and low-cost" in the sense that doing nothing is simple and low-cost, usually. But it's not an "approach" to anything. It's also not low-cost considering thousands of people are dying every day. It doesn't seem to me that there are easy solutions for this problems that offer better privacy that we haven't yet thought about for lack of time.
  - jka 7y ago
    It's an emotive issue and as technologists we often feel an urge to do something, anything straight away. I'm not suggesting delaying forever, and I do realize that there is human impact at the moment. I would not refer to the value of life in monetary terms that way. There may not be easy solutions but there are plenty of other contract tracing technologies[1] that experts have been discussing, developing and critiquing. I am suggesting that we allow those experts the time they need - no more, and no less - to get their work done to a sufficient level and report their findings to decision-makers. After that feedback is gathered it could become apparent that deploying GACT as a closed-source, time-unbounded OS-level feature with app approval restricted to two companies situated in one nation of the world is less than ideal. That could allow nations to collectively ask for changes to the proposal, with solidarity in their concerns and expert evidence to back it up. [1] - "Unified research on privacy-preserving contact tracing and exposure notification", https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Kh4_Q_tmyRh0-v452wiul9oQAiTRj8AdZ5vcOJum9Y/edit?ts=5e801c37 https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Kh4_Q_tmyRh0-v452wiul9o...
pfortuny 7y ago
There are things which just “suck” and have no viable alternative. For instance: the Government may try to implement a question on “religion” in the Census or it may not... Is there any useful alternative? Useful for what? Edit: and... five years later. “There was a mistake in the random number generator, all keys are discoverable”. Like, you know, the Intel Security Module.
- roca 7y ago
  The author isn't even saying there's no viable alternative. They're just leaving it open. That is particularly troublesome since in this case, unlike your hypothetical, there is obvious value in having faster and more accurate contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  - pfortuny 7y ago
    The author has absolutely no obligation to give an alternative, man. There is also LOSS of value in violations of privacy. Also: as a mathematician, there is lots of value in a counterexample to part of a proof. Just that, even though the final result is true.
    - roca 7y ago
      There's no obligation, it just means it's not a good article.
      - t-writescode 7y ago
        > it just means it's not a good article. Not necessarily. They included in the article that we could use decentralized contact tracing instead; and, an article arguing against a feature doesn't need an alternative. If a refrigerator were being released with a microwave, do I really need to provide alternatives to where I could put the microwave instead? Among other arguments, it argues that contact tracing is a source of mass surveillance. That alone, for the appropriate crowd, is enough reason to not use it. There doesn't need to be an alternative because the alternative is _not having it_. Just because a bunch of developers ended up wasting their resources on a feature that is a net loss for society doesn't mean that the feature needs to be released.
rollingbarreler 7y ago
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Defence is done in layers. Imagine a castle; does it stand on it's own in a plain field? Unlikely. It has walls, moats, hills, guard towers, bars on windows. Even if Google or Apple are _capable_ of doing something evil, you can stil prevent them from excersing that power by not setting an example that it's okay to do so.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Imagine a castle; does it stand on it's own in a plain field? Unlikely. It has walls Well, sure; if it didn't have walls, it wouldn't be a castle.
  - rollingbarreler 7y ago
    Castle is a fortified structure, it's not required to have a separate perimeter wall, though it is common. Some castles rely entirely on their own walls
- Nullabillity 7y ago
  > you can stil prevent them from excersing that power by not setting an example that it's okay to do so. And then they'll do it anyway a few years later, when you're not looking. Just look at Google's introduction and continuous tightening of SafetyNet requirements. And what the hell can you do? Switch to buying Apple, who set the gold standard for this crap years ago? Switch to Purism, which BankID (practically mandatory for life in Sweden, sadly) still hasn't been ported to?
  - rollingbarreler 7y ago
    Giving up because of a possibility of something going wrong is just asinine. By that logic you might aswell just waste away right now because we'll all perish in the heat-death of the universe. You get a chance and you take it. All things bring you towards success one step at a time, as unsatisfying as it might feel.
- t-writescode 7y ago
zackzay 7y ago
> Or should we abjure smartphone-powered contact tracing? Yes we should, if we complain about surveillance of Uighurs in China: https://www.ft.com/content/dfec4ac4-6bf5-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d https://www.ft.com/content/dfec4ac4-6bf5-11e9-80c7-60ee53e66... Speaking of China, ironically they are already running out of new patients: https://www.thestreet.com/investing/gilead-cancels-second-remdesivir-trial https://www.thestreet.com/investing/gilead-cancels-second-re... So probably Apple and Google have to hurry to use covid as an excuse to push their new data collection solution.
buboard 7y ago
The functionality is an enabler for authoritarian countries though
Hokusai 7y ago
> If they do, the concerns in this article do not apply. Most users are not your typical HN reader. Whatever is the default, or easy choice is the one that they are going to go for. Regulations were needed to forbid dark patterns with fishy defaults and pre-added items in the shopping car. People which profession is not related to computers may not have the time to spend analyzing and having a deep understanding of complex ethical computer problems. > 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. I though that this argument was discarded long time ago. If I do not want to use Google nor Apple what are the alternatives? (I really mean it, it is not a cheap shot to your next argument, that is not a bad one) My bank has apps for iOS and Android, like my travel agency and even government. When so much depends on two providers choice is not really there. That two points does not add much to your argument, as they are not good arguments in this or any situation. Leave them out next time and I think that your argument will gain more strength. I agree that a constructive criticism is important, thou.
- Doctor_Fegg 7y ago
  > Most users are not your typical HN reader. Which doesn't necessarily mean that the typical HN reader is right and most users are wrong. Many users will be prepared to sacrifice a bit of a "freedom" that HN users prize highly; that doesn't mean they're wrong to do so, just that their priorities differ.
- roca 7y ago
  In New Zealand, at least, I have no trouble conducting daily life using Web sites. I do have a smartphone but I don't use it for banking or shopping or government interactions. If my trust in Google and Apple declined I could downgrade to a dumbphone without much trouble (except for the trouble of actually finding one to buy). I agree that this situation needs to be preserved. FWIW I worked at Mozilla for a long time because I was (and still am) enthusiastic about their mission, which is partly about making sure the Web remains a) a strong platform for such applications and b) not wholly controlled by Apple and Google. Part of that was doing FirefoxOS which mostly failed but curiously, via KaiOS in India, is also kind of succeeding.
Allower 7y ago
Your entire premise is that a UI switch does what you think it does. Thats pretty fucking naive.
vinniejames 7y ago
You completely miss the point. Of course it will roll out giving users the control to opt out. The problem arises because once it is widespread flipping it to mandatory for all phones is trivial. Check YES to agree to our new Privacy Policy ;)
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, much like appeal to authority or ad hominem, only that people online seem to have far less trouble recognising the later two than the former.
  - t-writescode 7y ago
    I would argue that if there's anything true about American Society and the US Government is that we continually trend toward authoritarianism and there is no such slippery slope when it comes to the loss of freedom.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      The 13th Amendment and 19th Amendment are both net positive on freedom. Many other counterexamples exist.
      - t-writescode 7y ago
        The 19th Amendment was signed in 1920. Perhaps I should have said "since the Red Scare" or "since the War on Drugs"
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Marijuana legalization, etc. The point is that your claim has thousands of counterexamples and so is fairly nonsensical. If anything, net freedom has been continuously increasing, especially for minority groups.
        7y ago
arkanciscan 7y ago
I'm willing to trade my privacy for things I want. I don't want to know what kinds of diseases I'm coming in contact with every day. When a company starts invading my privacy without providing me with something I want I am likely to stop using them. Like I did with Facebook. Google was on thin ice before this. My next phone will likely be KaiOS powered.
feanaro 7y ago
> It is already the case that Google and Apple can push (more) surveillance into your device anytime. GACT does not change that. It does legitimize it and that is a very important thing. Right now, pushing this kind of thing covertly would be disastrous if (when) it is discovered. With GACT, it's already there so it's presence alone is not suspicious and can be enabled surreptitiously. > Or should we abjure smartphone-powered contact tracing? Yes, in its present state, I think we should. We've done without smartphone-powered contact tracing before so it is clearly not essential. In its current form, it is worse than the alternative of traditional contact tracing.
zxienin 7y ago
> 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. How realistic is to expect populace to exclude their choice of smartphones that are the dominant ones in market?
pacala 7y ago
> should we abjure smartphone-powered contact tracing? YES Since the Google Maps 'Allow 24/7 location tracing? Yes/Maybe Later' popping up once every other week, it is pretty clear that at least Google is willing to push surveillance as hard as possible. Once they have GACT built, deployed en masse and somewhat trusted by the public, it is not hard to infer they'll be willing to push any number of dark patterns to make it the de-facto reality for 99% of the population out there. In summary: Yes, they can push any shit right now on your phone. No, they don't just push it yet because they are afraid of public / internal backlash. Yes, they'll do everything in their power to boil the proverbial frog and gradually reduce the backlash potential, and will eventually push the most invasive surveillance they can possibly conceive. And they are pretty imaginative. Medium term bet: Within a year, Google will change GACT from opt-in to [de-facto] opt-out. For example by nagging you every two weeks: 'Protect your grandma life? Yes/Maybe Later'.
dingo_bat 7y ago
> The article is entirely premised on Apple and Google not giving users control over whether tracing is enabled. There is precedent for this. For example, android periodically scans Bluetooth and wifi devices even if you have those turned off. There is no indication to the user that this is happening. And as far as I can tell, there is no way to turn off this behavior.

by roca 7y ago

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.
- jka 7y ago
  Thank you; fair advice reasonably stated. My primary concern is related to maintaining pleasant social interaction and a reasonable balance of power on a time horizon of five years and beyond. To me it's hard to imagine that a continuous digital record of human interactions that is subject to a proprietary protocol and implementation would be the safest situation to end up in.
IAmEveryone 7y ago
> one simple and low-cost approach is to take more time for further discussion and review before accepting deployment of a system like this. That's "simple and low-cost" in the sense that doing nothing is simple and low-cost, usually. But it's not an "approach" to anything. It's also not low-cost considering thousands of people are dying every day. It doesn't seem to me that there are easy solutions for this problems that offer better privacy that we haven't yet thought about for lack of time.
- jka 7y ago
  It's an emotive issue and as technologists we often feel an urge to do something, anything straight away. I'm not suggesting delaying forever, and I do realize that there is human impact at the moment. I would not refer to the value of life in monetary terms that way. There may not be easy solutions but there are plenty of other contract tracing technologies[1] that experts have been discussing, developing and critiquing. I am suggesting that we allow those experts the time they need - no more, and no less - to get their work done to a sufficient level and report their findings to decision-makers. After that feedback is gathered it could become apparent that deploying GACT as a closed-source, time-unbounded OS-level feature with app approval restricted to two companies situated in one nation of the world is less than ideal. That could allow nations to collectively ask for changes to the proposal, with solidarity in their concerns and expert evidence to back it up. [1] - "Unified research on privacy-preserving contact tracing and exposure notification", https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Kh4_Q_tmyRh0-v452wiul9oQAiTRj8AdZ5vcOJum9Y/edit?ts=5e801c37 https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Kh4_Q_tmyRh0-v452wiul9o...

pfortuny 7y ago

There are things which just “suck” and have no viable alternative. For instance: the Government may try to implement a question on “religion” in the Census or it may not... Is there any useful alternative? Useful for what? Edit: and... five years later. “There was a mistake in the random number generator, all keys are discoverable”. Like, you know, the Intel Security Module.

roca 7y ago
The author isn't even saying there's no viable alternative. They're just leaving it open. That is particularly troublesome since in this case, unlike your hypothetical, there is obvious value in having faster and more accurate contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- pfortuny 7y ago
  The author has absolutely no obligation to give an alternative, man. There is also LOSS of value in violations of privacy. Also: as a mathematician, there is lots of value in a counterexample to part of a proof. Just that, even though the final result is true.
  - roca 7y ago
    There's no obligation, it just means it's not a good article.
    - t-writescode 7y ago
      > it just means it's not a good article. Not necessarily. They included in the article that we could use decentralized contact tracing instead; and, an article arguing against a feature doesn't need an alternative. If a refrigerator were being released with a microwave, do I really need to provide alternatives to where I could put the microwave instead? Among other arguments, it argues that contact tracing is a source of mass surveillance. That alone, for the appropriate crowd, is enough reason to not use it. There doesn't need to be an alternative because the alternative is _not having it_. Just because a bunch of developers ended up wasting their resources on a feature that is a net loss for society doesn't mean that the feature needs to be released.

rollingbarreler 7y ago

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Defence is done in layers. Imagine a castle; does it stand on it's own in a plain field? Unlikely. It has walls, moats, hills, guard towers, bars on windows. Even if Google or Apple are _capable_ of doing something evil, you can stil prevent them from excersing that power by not setting an example that it's okay to do so.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Imagine a castle; does it stand on it's own in a plain field? Unlikely. It has walls Well, sure; if it didn't have walls, it wouldn't be a castle.
- rollingbarreler 7y ago
  Castle is a fortified structure, it's not required to have a separate perimeter wall, though it is common. Some castles rely entirely on their own walls
Nullabillity 7y ago
> you can stil prevent them from excersing that power by not setting an example that it's okay to do so. And then they'll do it anyway a few years later, when you're not looking. Just look at Google's introduction and continuous tightening of SafetyNet requirements. And what the hell can you do? Switch to buying Apple, who set the gold standard for this crap years ago? Switch to Purism, which BankID (practically mandatory for life in Sweden, sadly) still hasn't been ported to?
- rollingbarreler 7y ago
  Giving up because of a possibility of something going wrong is just asinine. By that logic you might aswell just waste away right now because we'll all perish in the heat-death of the universe. You get a chance and you take it. All things bring you towards success one step at a time, as unsatisfying as it might feel.
t-writescode 7y ago

zackzay 7y ago

> Or should we abjure smartphone-powered contact tracing? Yes we should, if we complain about surveillance of Uighurs in China: https://www.ft.com/content/dfec4ac4-6bf5-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d https://www.ft.com/content/dfec4ac4-6bf5-11e9-80c7-60ee53e66... Speaking of China, ironically they are already running out of new patients: https://www.thestreet.com/investing/gilead-cancels-second-remdesivir-trial https://www.thestreet.com/investing/gilead-cancels-second-re... So probably Apple and Google have to hurry to use covid as an excuse to push their new data collection solution.

buboard 7y ago

The functionality is an enabler for authoritarian countries though

Hokusai 7y ago

> If they do, the concerns in this article do not apply. Most users are not your typical HN reader. Whatever is the default, or easy choice is the one that they are going to go for. Regulations were needed to forbid dark patterns with fishy defaults and pre-added items in the shopping car. People which profession is not related to computers may not have the time to spend analyzing and having a deep understanding of complex ethical computer problems. > 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. I though that this argument was discarded long time ago. If I do not want to use Google nor Apple what are the alternatives? (I really mean it, it is not a cheap shot to your next argument, that is not a bad one) My bank has apps for iOS and Android, like my travel agency and even government. When so much depends on two providers choice is not really there. That two points does not add much to your argument, as they are not good arguments in this or any situation. Leave them out next time and I think that your argument will gain more strength. I agree that a constructive criticism is important, thou.

Doctor_Fegg 7y ago
> Most users are not your typical HN reader. Which doesn't necessarily mean that the typical HN reader is right and most users are wrong. Many users will be prepared to sacrifice a bit of a "freedom" that HN users prize highly; that doesn't mean they're wrong to do so, just that their priorities differ.
roca 7y ago
In New Zealand, at least, I have no trouble conducting daily life using Web sites. I do have a smartphone but I don't use it for banking or shopping or government interactions. If my trust in Google and Apple declined I could downgrade to a dumbphone without much trouble (except for the trouble of actually finding one to buy). I agree that this situation needs to be preserved. FWIW I worked at Mozilla for a long time because I was (and still am) enthusiastic about their mission, which is partly about making sure the Web remains a) a strong platform for such applications and b) not wholly controlled by Apple and Google. Part of that was doing FirefoxOS which mostly failed but curiously, via KaiOS in India, is also kind of succeeding.

Allower 7y ago

Your entire premise is that a UI switch does what you think it does. Thats pretty fucking naive.

vinniejames 7y ago

You completely miss the point. Of course it will roll out giving users the control to opt out. The problem arises because once it is widespread flipping it to mandatory for all phones is trivial. Check YES to agree to our new Privacy Policy ;)

IAmEveryone 7y ago
Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, much like appeal to authority or ad hominem, only that people online seem to have far less trouble recognising the later two than the former.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  I would argue that if there's anything true about American Society and the US Government is that we continually trend toward authoritarianism and there is no such slippery slope when it comes to the loss of freedom.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    The 13th Amendment and 19th Amendment are both net positive on freedom. Many other counterexamples exist.
    - t-writescode 7y ago
      The 19th Amendment was signed in 1920. Perhaps I should have said "since the Red Scare" or "since the War on Drugs"
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Marijuana legalization, etc. The point is that your claim has thousands of counterexamples and so is fairly nonsensical. If anything, net freedom has been continuously increasing, especially for minority groups.
      - 7y ago

arkanciscan 7y ago

I'm willing to trade my privacy for things I want. I don't want to know what kinds of diseases I'm coming in contact with every day. When a company starts invading my privacy without providing me with something I want I am likely to stop using them. Like I did with Facebook. Google was on thin ice before this. My next phone will likely be KaiOS powered.

feanaro 7y ago

> It is already the case that Google and Apple can push (more) surveillance into your device anytime. GACT does not change that. It does legitimize it and that is a very important thing. Right now, pushing this kind of thing covertly would be disastrous if (when) it is discovered. With GACT, it's already there so it's presence alone is not suspicious and can be enabled surreptitiously. > Or should we abjure smartphone-powered contact tracing? Yes, in its present state, I think we should. We've done without smartphone-powered contact tracing before so it is clearly not essential. In its current form, it is worse than the alternative of traditional contact tracing.

zxienin 7y ago

> 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. How realistic is to expect populace to exclude their choice of smartphones that are the dominant ones in market?

pacala 7y ago

> should we abjure smartphone-powered contact tracing? YES Since the Google Maps 'Allow 24/7 location tracing? Yes/Maybe Later' popping up once every other week, it is pretty clear that at least Google is willing to push surveillance as hard as possible. Once they have GACT built, deployed en masse and somewhat trusted by the public, it is not hard to infer they'll be willing to push any number of dark patterns to make it the de-facto reality for 99% of the population out there. In summary: Yes, they can push any shit right now on your phone. No, they don't just push it yet because they are afraid of public / internal backlash. Yes, they'll do everything in their power to boil the proverbial frog and gradually reduce the backlash potential, and will eventually push the most invasive surveillance they can possibly conceive. And they are pretty imaginative. Medium term bet: Within a year, Google will change GACT from opt-in to [de-facto] opt-out. For example by nagging you every two weeks: 'Protect your grandma life? Yes/Maybe Later'.

dingo_bat 7y ago

> The article is entirely premised on Apple and Google not giving users control over whether tracing is enabled. There is precedent for this. For example, android periodically scans Bluetooth and wifi devices even if you have those turned off. There is no indication to the user that this is happening. And as far as I can tell, there is no way to turn off this behavior.