3 ms·
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 dat
by 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...
- jmull 7y agoSure... that’s part of why the Apple/Google contact tracing system is important. It sets the standard which includes privacy, transparency and opt-in at each step. It will be harder for governments to overstep once the standard is set.
- thebean11 7y agoBut that's a criticism of government policy, not of Google, Apple, or the technology they created right? If I'm forced by law to enable contract tracing, I hope it's created by Google and Apple and not a version created by some sketchy government contractor.
- empiricus 7y agoMy understanding from the article: if the tracing functionality is in the OS, it can be enabled in the future without user consent. The fact that currently we need to opt-in with an app does not really matter; in the future the government can decide to use it directly for whatever purposes.
- Mindwipe 7y agoIf the government decided that the OS vendors could push the functionality anyway. System level applications are controlled by the OS vendor and already have access to this data, so there is no additional risk here.
- jmull 7y agoAs the system is described there’s no way to flip a switch. Apple/Google could always push a software update that does all kinds of terrible things, but that has always been true and remains true with or without a contact tracing system. It’s a concerning possibility but has nothing at all to do with this system.