5 ms·

Bad Washington Post Story on Apple and Google's Exposure Notification Project

42 points by Reedx 6y ago

valuearb 6y ago
The misinformation has been extensive, even in this site where some supposed technologists don’t even understand the privacy protections.
an_opabinia 6y ago
It’s intuitive that contact tracing APIs, as Google and Apple PMs have conceived them, somehow help you. Some health officials have an opinion on what kind of software would help them, saying something extremely well publicized by Apple and Google will not. This conflict plays out with masks, taking flights, not being able to smell as a diagnostic, and any number of widely reported guidance that has some evidence, some intuition, tremendous exposure in social and traditional media but no conclusive, registered control trialed (RCT) results. A line of logic that goes, “in the absence of conclusive evidence, play it safe” doesn’t give you an answer for “track locations and surveil, to collect more data and answer questions better, versus collect a minimal amount of data in the interest of some other kind of safety called privacy.” There’s no universal rationalist approach to your opinion here. You have to decide whether to trust John Gruber or whatever health officials WashPo quoted. RCT is a real line for people in medicine, at least for people who aren’t looking to make a buck developing a drug. In the same way health officials don’t strictly care if the stock market goes down, they wouldn’t strictly care if Google and Apple’s brand would be impacted by detailed location tracking. At the end of the day health officials, like the UCSF prof quoted here, just want people to be safe and healthy. The counterpoint is, what do Apple and Google want? To do something? The appearance of doing something? They are not health organizations. John Gruber isn’t a doctor. These are different perspectives and goals, not an argument over how to achieve common goals. Why crank out and die on the hill of a giant company’s PR team?
- wskinner 6y ago
  > At the end of the day health officials, like the UCSF prof quoted here, just want people to be safe and healthy. If only it were so simple. Publicizing private data is a one-way operation that has longer term effects on safety and health, and we should certainly not do it without a very strong reason to do so. Health officials will not be accountable for the long term effects of their actions. Apple and Google will, so they are somewhat more incentivized to act to protect their users' privacy.
- CharlesW 6y ago
  > They are not health organizations. They are in part. Apple's "edge healthcare" products and services are an important aspect of the Apple experience. [1] https://www.apple.com/healthcare/ https://www.apple.com/healthcare/ [2] https://www.apple.com/healthcare/apple-watch/ https://www.apple.com/healthcare/apple-watch/ [3] https://www.apple.com/healthcare/health-records/ https://www.apple.com/healthcare/health-records/ [4] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208647 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208647
jtbayly 6y ago
On the other hand, there is some evidence from an app already in widespread use in Iceland that says it might be basically useless: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23204410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23204410
- CathedralBorrow 6y ago
  To be fair, the app was released at the tail end of the infection curve so there wasn't much pandemic to affect anymore. Could be useless, but I don't think this was a good test to generalize with.
ec109685 6y ago
There is spin in this analysis. Apple and Google have a huge amount of power when it comes to what capabilities they allow apps to use on their device. So when the article mentions “sovereign power” and “unbending stance”, it is referring to that. It is impossible for a user to run an app that collects tracing and location data in the background given the restrictions the OS puts in place. This definitely is better from a privacy standpoint, but it is these companies making the call that it’s better for society. Google and Apple are the ones that decide what data is collected and who it is shared with. It is pretty remarkable how much faith we must have in them.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Google and Apple are the ones that decide what data is collected and who it is shared with. It is pretty remarkable how much faith we must have in them. No, Google and Apple are one of a number of entities that have the ability to put a maximum on the data shared. Governments are free to pass laws that limit data collection and sharing (and some have!), and individual organizations are free to limit their collection and sharing. To an extent, individuals are also free to limit what data is collected about them, though I'll grant that this is difficult for many users. Do you really want to go the route of compelling Apple or Google to collect data on behalf of a government?
obarthelemy 6y ago
The Daring Fireball guy is very hurt hat someone is criticizing his beloved Apple, but there's at least a pinch of truth in the criticism: Apple and Google feel they're not only entitled, but own, the data they have on us. That they're not willing to share it even in a health emergency even with democratic governments is iffy. This should be at least user choice, if not decided at the ballot box. Certainly not by shareholders. Especially since it seems the app in question is, as a result, not very useful.
- dahdum 6y ago
  The data isn’t stored by Apple or Google, it remains on the device. Users have to decide whether to share their location history with the government or health authorities. Instead of automatically pushed every few minutes as one their sources insisted was necessary.

42 points by Reedx 6y ago

The misinformation has been extensive, even in this site where some supposed technologists don’t even understand the privacy protections.

an_opabinia 6y ago

It’s intuitive that contact tracing APIs, as Google and Apple PMs have conceived them, somehow help you. Some health officials have an opinion on what kind of software would help them, saying something extremely well publicized by Apple and Google will not. This conflict plays out with masks, taking flights, not being able to smell as a diagnostic, and any number of widely reported guidance that has some evidence, some intuition, tremendous exposure in social and traditional media but no conclusive, registered control trialed (RCT) results. A line of logic that goes, “in the absence of conclusive evidence, play it safe” doesn’t give you an answer for “track locations and surveil, to collect more data and answer questions better, versus collect a minimal amount of data in the interest of some other kind of safety called privacy.” There’s no universal rationalist approach to your opinion here. You have to decide whether to trust John Gruber or whatever health officials WashPo quoted. RCT is a real line for people in medicine, at least for people who aren’t looking to make a buck developing a drug. In the same way health officials don’t strictly care if the stock market goes down, they wouldn’t strictly care if Google and Apple’s brand would be impacted by detailed location tracking. At the end of the day health officials, like the UCSF prof quoted here, just want people to be safe and healthy. The counterpoint is, what do Apple and Google want? To do something? The appearance of doing something? They are not health organizations. John Gruber isn’t a doctor. These are different perspectives and goals, not an argument over how to achieve common goals. Why crank out and die on the hill of a giant company’s PR team?

wskinner 6y ago
> At the end of the day health officials, like the UCSF prof quoted here, just want people to be safe and healthy. If only it were so simple. Publicizing private data is a one-way operation that has longer term effects on safety and health, and we should certainly not do it without a very strong reason to do so. Health officials will not be accountable for the long term effects of their actions. Apple and Google will, so they are somewhat more incentivized to act to protect their users' privacy.
CharlesW 6y ago
> They are not health organizations. They are in part. Apple's "edge healthcare" products and services are an important aspect of the Apple experience. [1] https://www.apple.com/healthcare/ https://www.apple.com/healthcare/ [2] https://www.apple.com/healthcare/apple-watch/ https://www.apple.com/healthcare/apple-watch/ [3] https://www.apple.com/healthcare/health-records/ https://www.apple.com/healthcare/health-records/ [4] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208647 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208647

jtbayly 6y ago

On the other hand, there is some evidence from an app already in widespread use in Iceland that says it might be basically useless: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23204410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23204410

CathedralBorrow 6y ago
To be fair, the app was released at the tail end of the infection curve so there wasn't much pandemic to affect anymore. Could be useless, but I don't think this was a good test to generalize with.

ec109685 6y ago

There is spin in this analysis. Apple and Google have a huge amount of power when it comes to what capabilities they allow apps to use on their device. So when the article mentions “sovereign power” and “unbending stance”, it is referring to that. It is impossible for a user to run an app that collects tracing and location data in the background given the restrictions the OS puts in place. This definitely is better from a privacy standpoint, but it is these companies making the call that it’s better for society. Google and Apple are the ones that decide what data is collected and who it is shared with. It is pretty remarkable how much faith we must have in them.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Google and Apple are the ones that decide what data is collected and who it is shared with. It is pretty remarkable how much faith we must have in them. No, Google and Apple are one of a number of entities that have the ability to put a maximum on the data shared. Governments are free to pass laws that limit data collection and sharing (and some have!), and individual organizations are free to limit their collection and sharing. To an extent, individuals are also free to limit what data is collected about them, though I'll grant that this is difficult for many users. Do you really want to go the route of compelling Apple or Google to collect data on behalf of a government?

obarthelemy 6y ago

The Daring Fireball guy is very hurt hat someone is criticizing his beloved Apple, but there's at least a pinch of truth in the criticism: Apple and Google feel they're not only entitled, but own, the data they have on us. That they're not willing to share it even in a health emergency even with democratic governments is iffy. This should be at least user choice, if not decided at the ballot box. Certainly not by shareholders. Especially since it seems the app in question is, as a result, not very useful.

dahdum 6y ago
The data isn’t stored by Apple or Google, it remains on the device. Users have to decide whether to share their location history with the government or health authorities. Instead of automatically pushed every few minutes as one their sources insisted was necessary.