3 ms·

How is that more surveillance? Just observing identifiers you can't use to identify individuals (which is the case with contact tracing as implemented) is no su

by dx034 5y ago

How is that more surveillance? Just observing identifiers you can't use to identify individuals (which is the case with contact tracing as implemented) is no surveillance. It's like counting the number of cars on a busy highway, you can use that data in many ways but not for surveillance.

nixpulvis 5y ago
Because there is an element of Trust involved in the statement: "Just observing identifiers you can't use to identify individuals", which unless you completely understand the protocols and math (does anyone?) inflict at least a small amount burden on the mind. EDIT: Just to add a little bit to this reply. Using your example, counting the number of cars on a highway is clearly surveilling the group of highway goers. This could perhaps allow you to note that one demographic travels more on Sunday than another, or that a remote farmer himself was out for groceries last Tuesday.
- Someone 5y ago
  So, you bought a device that runs software you cannot inspect on a zillion different CPUs (the one you think your phone runs on, the one running below it, the phone modem’s ones, the one in your flash disk, etc), one of which has to tell the phone network where your phone is all the time, so that the network can find your phone when you get a call. For most users, another one regularly tells the manufacturer of your phone where your phone is, so that, if you lose it, you can use it to locate your phone. With neither, you can check whether that data is deleted in a timely manner or whether extra data, such as IDs of phones near you, is being sent out and collected. Now, the seller of said phone adds a feature, documenting that it collects hashes of phones near you on your device. Again, there’s no way for you to check that, but why would that require more trust?
  - nixpulvis 5y ago
    New databases. But your point is very valid. We already live under mass surveillance, to the point of insanity. I reject this way of living and would like to be part of the solution... without giving up on the good aspects of the technology.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  > EDIT: Just to add a little bit to this reply. Using your example, counting the number of cars on a highway is clearly surveilling the group of highway goers. This could perhaps allow you to note that one demographic travels more on Sunday than another, or that a remote farmer himself was out for groceries last Tuesday. Analogies suck, don't use them: 13038042-A0D5-4E76-8964-AF27B0EAD352 travels more on Sunday than others, and BD1DC4FD-2D17-44E3-91CF-198403C5E2B4 was out for groceries last Tuesday. There is no database that correlates bd1dc4f to anything; indeed, check back soon and the physical phone that used to be bd1 is now f0f4442. Spot the difference?
  - nixpulvis 5y ago
    Much trust in these hashes we must have, no? Much more trust in the absence of catalogs of them that others have. I can't prove anything, nor do I try, but still it rests on my mind.
    - 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
      Sure, the NSA could backdoor an opt-in system around a political third rail that is hardly if at all used in the United States. Or, it could attack the radio processor that runs a parallel operating system on our phones that we can't inspect. Or hell, if the goal is "tracking people", they could attack the legal infrastructure that is used to legally track people via cellphones today.
35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
Analogies are terribly leaky abstractions: a camera set up to watch cars on a busy highway can absolutely draw conclusions, doubly so if there are multiple networked cameras, and if the camera can see a license plate it's game over. A more realistic analogy would be "a camera monitors a busy road where all cars are replaced by identical black cubes with no windows, and a 256-bit license plate whose value is set entirely locally, is not known to anyone but the occupant of the car, and changes unpredictably on the hour". Can you track a car in this world? Sure, but it would require significant data collection and analysis and would almost always end up probabilistic at best. Is this analogy useful? You decide. No, it is divorced from observable reality. Yes, because it avoids misunderstandings like "you didn't intend for your analogy to include license plate scanners but your audience assumed it possible".
hackerfromthefu 5y ago
Sound like a pretty naive take on this really. Because you can't figure out how to use the information doesn't mean someone else can't. OR can't correlate it with other information for a more complete surveillance picture than before. If it has value in this modern world teams of specialists find ways to extract the signal from the noise.

by dx034 5y ago

nixpulvis 5y ago

Because there is an element of Trust involved in the statement: "Just observing identifiers you can't use to identify individuals", which unless you completely understand the protocols and math (does anyone?) inflict at least a small amount burden on the mind. EDIT: Just to add a little bit to this reply. Using your example, counting the number of cars on a highway is clearly surveilling the group of highway goers. This could perhaps allow you to note that one demographic travels more on Sunday than another, or that a remote farmer himself was out for groceries last Tuesday.

Someone 5y ago
So, you bought a device that runs software you cannot inspect on a zillion different CPUs (the one you think your phone runs on, the one running below it, the phone modem’s ones, the one in your flash disk, etc), one of which has to tell the phone network where your phone is all the time, so that the network can find your phone when you get a call. For most users, another one regularly tells the manufacturer of your phone where your phone is, so that, if you lose it, you can use it to locate your phone. With neither, you can check whether that data is deleted in a timely manner or whether extra data, such as IDs of phones near you, is being sent out and collected. Now, the seller of said phone adds a feature, documenting that it collects hashes of phones near you on your device. Again, there’s no way for you to check that, but why would that require more trust?
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  New databases. But your point is very valid. We already live under mass surveillance, to the point of insanity. I reject this way of living and would like to be part of the solution... without giving up on the good aspects of the technology.
35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
> EDIT: Just to add a little bit to this reply. Using your example, counting the number of cars on a highway is clearly surveilling the group of highway goers. This could perhaps allow you to note that one demographic travels more on Sunday than another, or that a remote farmer himself was out for groceries last Tuesday. Analogies suck, don't use them: 13038042-A0D5-4E76-8964-AF27B0EAD352 travels more on Sunday than others, and BD1DC4FD-2D17-44E3-91CF-198403C5E2B4 was out for groceries last Tuesday. There is no database that correlates bd1dc4f to anything; indeed, check back soon and the physical phone that used to be bd1 is now f0f4442. Spot the difference?
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  Much trust in these hashes we must have, no? Much more trust in the absence of catalogs of them that others have. I can't prove anything, nor do I try, but still it rests on my mind.
  - 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
    Sure, the NSA could backdoor an opt-in system around a political third rail that is hardly if at all used in the United States. Or, it could attack the radio processor that runs a parallel operating system on our phones that we can't inspect. Or hell, if the goal is "tracking people", they could attack the legal infrastructure that is used to legally track people via cellphones today.

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago

Analogies are terribly leaky abstractions: a camera set up to watch cars on a busy highway can absolutely draw conclusions, doubly so if there are multiple networked cameras, and if the camera can see a license plate it's game over. A more realistic analogy would be "a camera monitors a busy road where all cars are replaced by identical black cubes with no windows, and a 256-bit license plate whose value is set entirely locally, is not known to anyone but the occupant of the car, and changes unpredictably on the hour". Can you track a car in this world? Sure, but it would require significant data collection and analysis and would almost always end up probabilistic at best. Is this analogy useful? You decide. No, it is divorced from observable reality. Yes, because it avoids misunderstandings like "you didn't intend for your analogy to include license plate scanners but your audience assumed it possible".

hackerfromthefu 5y ago

Sound like a pretty naive take on this really. Because you can't figure out how to use the information doesn't mean someone else can't. OR can't correlate it with other information for a more complete surveillance picture than before. If it has value in this modern world teams of specialists find ways to extract the signal from the noise.