3 ms·

Although there are no perfect solutions, there are systems which willingly connect to and distribute contact data to government servers, and there are systems w

Although there are no perfect solutions, there are systems which willingly connect to and distribute contact data to government servers, and there are systems which do not.

Silhouette 6y ago
As the paper notes, there are also systems that are vulnerable to various kinds of abuse by malicious actors and there are systems that are not. The price of using an unauthenticated, distributed system instead is likely to be greater vulnerability to some of those forms of attack and/or a dependency on verifiable test results that causes possibly very damaging delays in sending out notifications.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > there are also systems that are vulnerable to various kinds of abuse by malicious actors Some people consider GCHQ themselves to be malicious actors when it comes to the privacy of the UK public.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    I'm sure they do. Under some conditions, I might even be one of them. However, the drawback if data from a centralised system for coronavirus tracing is abused by central authorities contrary to their explicit public statements is obvious and not particularly interesting or enlightening, so I suggest we all stick to discussing the substance of the article rather than conspiracy theories. If the government wanted to track people centrally via their mobile phones, it's not as if there aren't more reliable ways they could do it anyway.
- sigwinch28 6y ago
  So are you saying that the Venn diagram of centralised government controlled systems and systems not vulnerable to malicious users is a single circle? I don’t think so, and the NHSX described system also seems vulnerable to a degree.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    Of course not. I just think the threat if the government straight-up lie and then abuse the contact graph is obvious and not particularly interesting as a conspiracy theory. I also think that in this particular case, it's not really that much of a threat, for the simple reason that more effective means are already trivially available for the government to track people using their mobile phones if it wants to.
    - sigwinch28 6y ago
      The problem is they're not straight-up lying: they're admitting to MPs that this data will be used for "research", people will have no right to delete their own data, and that Peter Thiel's Palantir is involved and basically giving away the services for free. Whataboutmanship isn't an excuse either, to me. Just because the government is capable of hacking our phones, getting our phone records, and sending men in black cars to watch our houses doesn't mean we should also invite them in via an app we choose to install. Edit: I agree with you: I don't think this is a conspiracy and I don't think a centralised contact tracing app is a security concern if its used just for that. However, I do not trust the British government at all, especially given their beyond-satire record. Don't give the state an inch: they'll take a mile.

Although there are no perfect solutions, there are systems which willingly connect to and distribute contact data to government servers, and there are systems which do not.

Silhouette 6y ago

As the paper notes, there are also systems that are vulnerable to various kinds of abuse by malicious actors and there are systems that are not. The price of using an unauthenticated, distributed system instead is likely to be greater vulnerability to some of those forms of attack and/or a dependency on verifiable test results that causes possibly very damaging delays in sending out notifications.

zimpenfish 6y ago
> there are also systems that are vulnerable to various kinds of abuse by malicious actors Some people consider GCHQ themselves to be malicious actors when it comes to the privacy of the UK public.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  I'm sure they do. Under some conditions, I might even be one of them. However, the drawback if data from a centralised system for coronavirus tracing is abused by central authorities contrary to their explicit public statements is obvious and not particularly interesting or enlightening, so I suggest we all stick to discussing the substance of the article rather than conspiracy theories. If the government wanted to track people centrally via their mobile phones, it's not as if there aren't more reliable ways they could do it anyway.
sigwinch28 6y ago
So are you saying that the Venn diagram of centralised government controlled systems and systems not vulnerable to malicious users is a single circle? I don’t think so, and the NHSX described system also seems vulnerable to a degree.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  Of course not. I just think the threat if the government straight-up lie and then abuse the contact graph is obvious and not particularly interesting as a conspiracy theory. I also think that in this particular case, it's not really that much of a threat, for the simple reason that more effective means are already trivially available for the government to track people using their mobile phones if it wants to.
  - sigwinch28 6y ago
    The problem is they're not straight-up lying: they're admitting to MPs that this data will be used for "research", people will have no right to delete their own data, and that Peter Thiel's Palantir is involved and basically giving away the services for free. Whataboutmanship isn't an excuse either, to me. Just because the government is capable of hacking our phones, getting our phone records, and sending men in black cars to watch our houses doesn't mean we should also invite them in via an app we choose to install. Edit: I agree with you: I don't think this is a conspiracy and I don't think a centralised contact tracing app is a security concern if its used just for that. However, I do not trust the British government at all, especially given their beyond-satire record. Don't give the state an inch: they'll take a mile.