3 ms·

I'd be happy to install it for the duration of the outbreak. It's not as if I'm doing anything terribly interesting. It doesn't sound like it would collect any

I'd be happy to install it for the duration of the outbreak. It's not as if I'm doing anything terribly interesting. It doesn't sound like it would collect anywhere near as much personal data as Google, or the government, already does. For the sake of protecting lives and getting out of lockdown quicker to rebuild the economy I'm prepared to sacrifice a little privacy. Edit: I don't particularly care, but there seems to be a systematic approach from some users to voting down posts for expressing honestly held beliefs that a balanced approach can be taken with respect to privacy.

jupp0r 6y ago
The question is why they didn't implement it in a decentralized way that works together with OS primitives implemented by Google and Apple. I would also install it for the duration of the outbreak, if there wasn't any effective alternative. My gripe is that there is an alternative that works 100% as well and they chose to ignore it in favor of universal population surveillance.
- chimprich 6y ago
  It's a fair question; the answer to that doesn't seem to have been communicated yet. We can speculate as to reasons why: one could be that the authors feel that the decentralised approach is lacking some important feature that could save lives, such as insufficient feedback about how it is being used. Another could be that they feel that they can implement a solution faster than waiting for Google/Apple to finish their platform and then building something on top of it. This leaves open the possibility of changing tack if the new API is superior. Or maybe they're just hedging their bets in case the Google/Apple approach doesn't work or gets pulled. (I'm assuming none of this is a nefarious plot by the government to add to their general surveillance powers. I personally don't think they'd care given the considerable abilities they already reputedly have to track mobiles).

jupp0r 6y ago

The question is why they didn't implement it in a decentralized way that works together with OS primitives implemented by Google and Apple. I would also install it for the duration of the outbreak, if there wasn't any effective alternative. My gripe is that there is an alternative that works 100% as well and they chose to ignore it in favor of universal population surveillance.

chimprich 6y ago
It's a fair question; the answer to that doesn't seem to have been communicated yet. We can speculate as to reasons why: one could be that the authors feel that the decentralised approach is lacking some important feature that could save lives, such as insufficient feedback about how it is being used. Another could be that they feel that they can implement a solution faster than waiting for Google/Apple to finish their platform and then building something on top of it. This leaves open the possibility of changing tack if the new API is superior. Or maybe they're just hedging their bets in case the Google/Apple approach doesn't work or gets pulled. (I'm assuming none of this is a nefarious plot by the government to add to their general surveillance powers. I personally don't think they'd care given the considerable abilities they already reputedly have to track mobiles).