Should GPS Also Be Used For Contact Tracing? (trust.org) 110
Reuters reports:
Google and Apple have sought to build public trust by emphasizing that the changes they are making to Bluetooth to allow the tracing apps to work will not tap phones' GPS sensors, which privacy activists see as too intrusive. But the states pioneering the apps -- North and South Dakota, and Utah -- say allowing public health authorities to use GPS in tandem with Bluetooth is key to making the system viable...
Apple and Google said on Friday that they still have not decided how to proceed. "I would encourage them to go for the 'and' and not the 'or' solution," North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum said of Apple and Google in an interview late Thursday. "During this new normal, there is a place for having solutions that protect privacy and enable more efficient contact tracing," said Burgum... "What Utah wanted to understand is not just who is spreading [the virus] to whom but also location zones," said Jared Allgood, chief strategy officer for Twenty, the startup which developed Utah's app for an initial $1.75 million. GPS location data allows authorities to decide which businesses may need to be closed because the virus is spreading there, and prioritize which contacts of diagnosed patients to test...
Anonymized GPS location data is already playing a key role in an early version of Care19, an app that about 40,000 people have signed up for in North and South Dakota. Authorities currently ask Care19 users to give them permission for timestamped GPS location data, which allows officials to manually call places where users could have spread the virus and ask for names and numbers of others who may have been there at the same time.
North Dakota's governor suggests that not everyone is concerned about sharing their GPS data. "Some people are completely opposed to an intrusion on privacy," he told Reuters, "but there's a younger generation sharing their location on dozens of apps. There may be a set of people highly social, young and going out to bars who may see this tool as fantastic."
And Yahoo News reports another concern about contact tracing. "Some argue the information should be pushed out to a central server managed by a trustworthy government or health care entity, while others insist that data remain on individual devices."
Apple and Google said on Friday that they still have not decided how to proceed. "I would encourage them to go for the 'and' and not the 'or' solution," North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum said of Apple and Google in an interview late Thursday. "During this new normal, there is a place for having solutions that protect privacy and enable more efficient contact tracing," said Burgum... "What Utah wanted to understand is not just who is spreading [the virus] to whom but also location zones," said Jared Allgood, chief strategy officer for Twenty, the startup which developed Utah's app for an initial $1.75 million. GPS location data allows authorities to decide which businesses may need to be closed because the virus is spreading there, and prioritize which contacts of diagnosed patients to test...
Anonymized GPS location data is already playing a key role in an early version of Care19, an app that about 40,000 people have signed up for in North and South Dakota. Authorities currently ask Care19 users to give them permission for timestamped GPS location data, which allows officials to manually call places where users could have spread the virus and ask for names and numbers of others who may have been there at the same time.
North Dakota's governor suggests that not everyone is concerned about sharing their GPS data. "Some people are completely opposed to an intrusion on privacy," he told Reuters, "but there's a younger generation sharing their location on dozens of apps. There may be a set of people highly social, young and going out to bars who may see this tool as fantastic."
And Yahoo News reports another concern about contact tracing. "Some argue the information should be pushed out to a central server managed by a trustworthy government or health care entity, while others insist that data remain on individual devices."
Trustworthy government? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trustworthy government sounds nice - but where would you get such a thing? I guess may be we could ask Iceland?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't go so far as to say that people get the government they deserve. That's too optimistic. But you certainly can't expect to get a better government than you deserve.
Re: Trustworthy government? (Score:1)
By stopping voter suppression (Score:5, Funny)
Voting must be an absolute, universal right and duty. More sacrosanct than any other.
On a practical level this means:
1. National Vote by Mail for all elections.
2. Universal suffrage. If your society has so many pedophiles and ax murders they're swinging elections you've got bigger problems.
3. Automatic Voter Registration.
4. Mandatory Voting. Just like Jury duty, it's a duty AND a right.
5. Finally Ranked Choice voting so you can't manipulate the system via parties.
The above 5 items are the most important steps, but like any complex system democracy needs tweaking, maintenance and repair over time. Note that I didn't say anything about the blood of patriots. Violence never ends with anything but a change of masters and a new dictatorship. We need democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't get #5 without 1-4 (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we retain the electoral college and the most popular vote is limited to each state, then fine. Otherwise you end up with the 5 most populous states deciding every election.
Extreme example to make my point: Convince those states that everything is Wyoming's fault, and we should throw them into concentration camps. Don't you think the folks in Wyoming might want a say it that?
Re: (Score:2)
The folks in Wyoming should have taught about that five generations ago and made more descendants.
Re: (Score:2)
The most popular candidate is the one who offers the most "free" stuff. Your proposals would not help that.
Also we need to retain a robust way to prevent a tyranny of the majority. The electoral college and Constitution work pretty well at that, but the urban areas keep trying to turn the countryside into sources of cheap food and cheap vacations. Clinton, Gore, and Babbit's War on the West was a fine example that destroyed a lot of middle-class jobs. And more recently Congress put a rather large area in Wa
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I'm for 3, as much I'm against 4. Mandatory voting only leads to uninterested and uninformed people making the decision, because if you force people to to and vote, they will. And they will make an uninformed and completely arbitrary decision because hey, I'm here so I can as well vote for SOMEONE. And I think I remember seeing that guy so I vote for him.
Don't do that. If people don't want to vote and not participate in the political process, let them. I'd rather have someone not vote than having
You're still picking who gets to vote (Score:3, Informative)
The point of Mandatory voting isn't to force people to vote, it's to create one more block on voter suppression.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'm confused. If you make something mandatory, how do you not force someone to do it? Either something is mandatory, then you force someone to do it even if they don't want to. Or you don't force people unwilling to do something, then it's not mandatory.
I never said it wasn't (Score:2)
The reason to make it mandatory is that if you make it mandatory then people can't weasel out of giving it to you.
That is what we have now. I can come up with a thousand excuses about why I'm making it difficult for you to vote and you can't really say anything.
Once it's mandatory you can say "Well, if you're gonna force me to do it you better let me do it"
Compulsory education is similar. Nobody questions the buses, free books and computers and all the othe
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly didn't notice a difference when they finally got rid of mandatory voting for some elections in my country. I can still go and vote like I did before, with the difference that I can now actually just abstain and decide that neither of the goofballs deserves my vote without having to haul my ass there first.
Re: (Score:3)
But good luck with that, the only ones who could actually get rid of it are also the ones that have a keen interest in keeping it that way.
Don't be so pessimistic. Maine and California have already reformed FPTP.
Maine now uses ranked voting.
California has switched to open primaries for state and local elections (but not federal).
27 states allow referendums. So incumbent politicians can't roadblock reform everywhere.
Re: By stopping voter suppression (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
California is a one party state.
Open primaries fix that.
Since everyone votes together, centrist Democrats can appeal to moderate Republicans and independents.
The two top vote-getters in the primary advance to the general election, regardless of party.
In many liberal areas, this means the general election is blue-on-blue, with the more centrist candidate more likely to win.
Re: (Score:1)
As much as I'm for 3, as much I'm against 4. Mandatory voting only leads to uninterested and uninformed people making the decision, because if you force people to to and vote, they will.
Better uninterested uninformed people. Than extremist highly interested but completely misinformed people. Anything to dilute the extremist of any persuasion.
Totally disagree. Bumper sticker / Twitter voting (Score:5, Interesting)
I totally disagree. I think many of our current problems are due to causes which those proposals would only exacerbate.
I don't know anything about music, because that's not something I'm interested in, so I haven't learned.
I know nothing about art history, because that's not something I'm interested in, so I haven't learned.
I know virtually nothing about sports, again for the same reason.
There are many areas in which I'm ignorant, fields I don't spend my time learning about.
Many people aren't fascinated by macroeconomics and don't spend their time studying demand curves. Most aren't foreign policy nerds. Most don't have any idea whether the federal budget is below $1 trillion, above $10 trillion or somewhere in between $1-10 trillion. In fact, in one survey most didn't know the name of the vice president. Not even his name. That's okay - they probably know a lot about a lot of topics, topics they are interest in. They don't know the names of the people currently running the country.
The issues are complex. When about half of the informed people want X and about half want Y, that's because there are advantages and disadvantages of each. To make an intelligent decision about many of these issues you need to spend a little time studying them. That fact kinda sucks, but it's true even if it sucks.
Lacking any basis on which to make an informed decision, not even knowing the names of the incumbents, how do many voters decide? Common ways of deciding as reported by voters in exit polls (meaning people who just voted):
The candidate's genitalia / gender
The candidate's name
He's good looking / not good looking
If you don't know the difference between a router and a switch, we don't need you to make routing policy decisions. It's okay to leave that to the people who do know what a netmask is. If you don't know who Mitch Mconnell is, that's okay - we can let the 80 million people who DO know who he is judge his job performance. It's okay for questions of macroeconomic policy to be by people who know what the word macroeconomics means. Kinda like how we let the people who know the difference between a CPU and a GPU choose the computers.
Re:Totally disagree. Bumper sticker / Twitter voti (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it left to those competent people though? Isn't it more honest to say it's left to the people who watch Fox and believe them unquestioningly. You aren't being serious if you are going to count those people as the 'informed decision makers' you portray them to be.
Studies show Fox viewers are less informed about global events than viewers of no news at all. [google.com]
Fox viewers though the coronavirus was just a common cold not even as bad as a flu, untill they flipped and decided 100k dead is a good outcome. (except for the ones that still think it's no big deal) These are you 'informed voters'.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Fox News viewers elected Nancy Pelosi - again.
After electing Robert Byrd first to KKK leadership, then to the Senate for 51 years straight. Marion Barry and Ray Nagin too.
Whoever you think doesn't know anything about the issues, you don't want to force them to vote. Those who have no interest in the issues have no basis for making a logical decision. They can only make decisions based on stupid reasons, so it doesn't help to have them making the decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
They can only make decisions based on stupid reasons, so it doesn't help to have them making the decisions.
Are you talking about the Fox viewers again...
They are only making decisions based on false information. Based on the Opinions of on air personalities Not any factual relevant information.
If everyone was forced to vote. Fox etc would have to expand out and target more than just the narrow selection they are targeting now. They will open themselves up to more scrutiny. They would be forced to become more mainstream or polarize even harder and go even further all in on the crazies.
Either way is bad for the
Re: (Score:2)
Yeppers. And most people think that the Military is the majority of the Federal Budget (it's not even a majority of the discretionary spending. Quite...)....
Re: (Score:1)
Throw in voter ID and you have a deal. Everything you list could work but without clearly identifying voters the system is ripe for fraud and therefore undermines everything you say you want. Voter ID properly done doesn't need to be racist or sexist or discriminatory in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Provocative comment, but I can't see the basis for the Funny moderation it is currently displaying. Stepping on GOT toes?
However my provocative response is that I think I'm in the process of giving up on conventional democracy. I still like the one-person-one-vote idea, but as it works now, the people who vote for the wrong candidate get essentially nothing when their candidate loses. The "winner" ignores those voters (especially if the district is gerrymandered). Voting and then being ignored may feel as b
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember, people in the Dakotas have lots of land, and very little dependance upon law enforcement for quick response. Therefore, they are properly armed to protect livestock, property and themselves. The use of deadly force is acceptable to protect life, home and property. With that type of playing field, most aren't worried about having their rights violated.
ICE deportations - Say Yes (Score:2)
Re: Trustworthy government? (Score:1)
Governments across America and Europe have ALREADY implemented totalitarian mass house arrest and tyrannical social isolation decrees. These governments are ALREADY grinding society under an iron boot. There is no question whether they can be trusted to uphold human rights - they are RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY, committing crimes against humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
This recently created account has made a grand total of two posts - both worded identically. I wonder who he works for?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile China having over a billion people can afford to lose a few hundred thousand to this virus and not get wrecked by it, especially if they knew ahead of time it would happen and how and were ready for it.
And how do you propose China just keeps it to a few hundred thousand and not let it spread and kill millions instead?
Apart from wrecking their economy which you just took off the table and said wasn't an option.
Magic?
Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore Australia, NewZealand etc got the same information. Why didn't they have the same results? Why are you blaming China for
Re: (Score:2)
LOL China CAN afford to lose a couple MILLION people, it'd make it easier to feed the rest.
China doesn't value human life as high as some governments do, and if you don't understand that then you haven't been paying attention.
Or are you one of those fools who have drunk the China propaganda kool-aid by the gallon and think they're somehow pure as the driven snow and The Media is just bein
Re: (Score:2)
So you couldn't think of a way to then?
Sure they could afford to. But you still haven't come up with a way for them to actually do it.
From what we can tell. They did value the lives more, or they wouldn't have shut down the economy to try and save them. It makes no difference if you believe the numbers. 1k 10k 100k or as many millions as you like. Fact is they tried, and valued the lives higher. Which is more than some places did.
Remind me again which countries are valuing the economy and business more th
Re: (Score:2)
You can fuck the fuck off. You're either some extreme liberal who has been totally convinced that the Chinese government is as pure as the driven snow and that we should all bow down to them, or, as previously stated, you're just another foreign agen
Re: (Score:2)
I'm speaking from a military strategic viewpoint, not any socio-political viewpoint.
And your 'military viewpoint' is for China to use some kind of magic to stop the outbreak at just a million or so.
In the real world even 'military viewpoints' need to be reality based. Or your military ends up losing bigtime.
But you're either incapable of understanding that, unwilling to understand that, or conveniently ignoring it and preferring to attempt to write me off as mentally unbalanced.
Play the poor little victim card why not. I was just showing your argument and analysis is flawed. You're the only one trying to make it personal. Fight the messenger if you can't fight the message.
You can fuck the fuck off. You're either some extreme liberal who has been totally convinced that the Chinese government is as pure as the driven snow and that we should all bow down to them, or, as previously stated, you're just another foreign agent, posting on American websites, to spread pro-China propaganda.
You can go fuck yourself too.
You've lost the argument so you need to portray me as some
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump accelerated the propagation of the coronavirus. His tendency to hide the truth allowed the coronavirus to spread quickly.
January 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.”
February 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”
February 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
February 25: “CDC and my Administration
Re: (Score:2)
I won't defend Trump's statements, but you do realize that Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus the director of the WHO was also downplaying the virus early on.
It just makes so much sense (Score:1)
Covid itself is bad, but just think how much worse things would be with a virus that was even more deadly, or more contagious...
We as a species would have to be nuts not to figure out some way to turn the smartphones so many people carry, into tools for backwards contact tracing.
Yes 100% this is fraught with peril for abuse. But even just to make it a feature authorities could send out like an amber alert, that would blindly ask anyone who is been in a certain region over a certain period of time to allow
Just think if the Nazis had this tech! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just think if the Nazis had this tech!
IBM helped them.
Re: Just think if the Nazis had this tech! (Score:1)
Re: Just think if the Nazis had this tech! (Score:2)
That nice young man Mr Hitler says he's doing it all for the public good - so it must be okay!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the time you've got the test result - even if it's an immediate readout antibody test - it is out of date. Virus in your blood stream while you were taking the test could have actually got into cells and started replicating.
A negative test describes your immune system's status at the time the sample was taken and at no later time. A negative antigen test describes your immune system's status several days
Re: It just makes so much sense (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We as a species would have to be nuts not to figure out some way to turn the smartphones so many people carry, into tools for backwards contact tracing.
I am not personally the human species, and I'm not interested in having you track me.
Need laws (Score:3)
I think restricting technology is rarely an effective way to ensure privacy. Someone will figure out a clever way to turn Bluetooth distance maps into actual personal locations and interactions, without violating the letter of the rules.
I think its much better to restrict how the information is used though laws - though of course that is far from perfect.
Re: (Score:1)
We tried that with HIPAA. Large as the fines are, companies just pay them like an inconvenient parking ticket. If they ever get fined.
Re: (Score:3)
If the fines are below the cost of avoiding them, they just become part of the operational costs.
Re: (Score:1)
We'd probably need to levy some DNA related penalties.
Usually works.
Or is it "related DNA"?
Re: (Score:1)
maybe this can be done with crypto, eg. zk-SNARKs
Anon location data yes, GPS no... Battery life (Score:4, Informative)
Google and Apple are using Low Power Bluetooth because normal bluetooth will drain the batteries to fast. Ditto with GPS (or, more exactly, SatNav* info).
More often than not, I have GPS/SatNav turned off for battery savings. Mind you location data (sans GPS, to save battery) is turned on at all times on my phone, so it can use Basestations and Known wifi points for an approximate location, but GPS/SatNav only when driving. Besides, GPS/SatNav will not work indoors, like in a mall, theatre or shop.
So, if you ask me, that's a yes to anonymized location data, but a hard no on requiring GPS/SatNav specificaly. After all, if the battery dies, you can not do any contact tracking whatsoever...
JM2C YMMV
* Remember that GPS is not the only SatNav, there are also other global ones: Glonass, Galileo and BeiDou, and regional ones like Navic and QZSS... depending on country, your cellphone may use one or the other (or more than one).
Re: (Score:1)
Hell no, no GPS tracking, it'll never stop! (Score:2)
Me, I don't have or want a smartphone, and I'd break my $40 dumbphone in half and get a landline again before I'd consent to this, and if they tried to mandate having a goddamned smartphone I'd tell them to get fucked. No GPS tracking of citizens, virus or no virus. There are other ways to deal with this that don't entail giving up the last bits of privacy and actual real fr
Re: (Score:2)
If you give the government the power to do this sort of tracking openly they'll NEVER give it up later, we'll all be tracked, forever. Me, I don't have or want a smartphone, and I'd break my $40 dumbphone in half and get a landline again before I'd consent to this, and if they tried to mandate having a goddamned smartphone I'd tell them to get fucked. No GPS tracking of citizens, virus or no virus. There are other ways to deal with this that don't entail giving up the last bits of privacy and actual real freedom we have.
You could easily have a smartphone that meets your requirements, but I get the feeling you've never looked into that even once because your tinfoil hat was too tight.
OTOH, I totally agree with you that nobody should have this kind of control over the population. Attempting to make these kind of decisions for the civilian population ("for their own good") is what leads to things like death camps, armed uprisings, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
'Smarphones', among other things, are a security nightmare. You cannot properly secure it like you would a desktop or laptop computer. They're so full of security holes that I wouldn't be surprised if every smartphone on the planet is compromised in some way or other.
Then there's the fact that there's crapware on them you cannot delete, and some apps even if you can delete them, parts of them don't go away.
Then there's the fact that wireless companies 'man
Re: (Score:3)
If you give the government the power to do this sort of tracking openly they'll NEVER give it up later, we'll all be tracked, forever.
This is a valid concern that must be taken seriously
Me, I don't have or want a smartphone, and I'd break my $40 dumbphone in half and get a landline again before I'd consent to this, and if they tried to mandate having a goddamned smartphone I'd tell them to get fucked. No GPS tracking of citizens, virus or no virus. There are other ways to deal with this that don't entail giving up the last bits of privacy and actual real freedom we have.
The other way is lockdown/quarantine. Pick your poison I guess.
You can move about freely if you don't mind everyone knowing where the outbreaks happen. Or you can hide at home "for freedom!" if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a fever, and the only cure is... (Score:1)
I have a fever, and the only cure is a totalitarian prison state!!
Re: Hell no, no GPS tracking, it'll never stop! (Score:2)
But without a tyrannical police state, who will save us from the Invisible Enemy??
NO (Score:4, Informative)
Given that civilian GPS is only accurate to about 100 metres, using GPS for contract tracing is rather useless. Two GPS receivers, one located in the left pocket and one in the right pocket could report positions that are 200 metres apart. Similarly, two GPS receivers located on opposite sides of a 4 lane highway could report the same position.
This is an inherent limitation of the pseudoranging algorithms. While 100 metre accuracy is sufficient for target control of thermonuclear weapons it is not sufficient for contact tracing. Applications which require higher levels of accuracy do not use uncorrected CA GPS.
Re:NO (Score:5, Informative)
"Given that civilian GPS is only accurate to about 100 metres"
Yes, if you're in a tunnel. Cell phone that see more than 2 birds can usually calculate an exact address. And I have a UAV that when it loses signal (usually about 3/4 a mile away) and lands usually no more than 5-6 inches from where the flight started. And it only needs to see 6 birds for that accuracy. That doesn't even account for new receivers that see more than just our constellation.
Re:NO (Score:4, Informative)
Given that civilian GPS is only accurate to about 100 metres, using GPS for contract tracing is rather useless.
Not even close.
https://www.gps.gov/systems/gp... [gps.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't change the fact that GPS is probably not accurate enough for this (just not as bad as you think but bad enough), and impor
Bigfoot? (Score:2)
This entire post is like discussions about the gender and reproductive habits of Bigfoot before ascertaining that Bigfoot exists.
The first question is whether automated contact tracing apps are necessary and serve the greater good for all those tracked by them.
Re: (Score:2)
A taser mounted on the end of a hockey-stick is far more effective at keeping shitheads at bay. The morons that want to run about infecting each other and dying should be free to do so -- however, if they seek medical attention they should simply be shown the door.
Re: Bigfoot? (Score:2)
What so much hatred? Have you been driven _that_ mad with fear of the Invisible Enemy? Will you be so enthusiastic for tyranny when the Covid Rouge drag _you_ away to the camps?
Re: (Score:2)
No hatred. People should simply get what they ask for. Their God will take care of them. Who am I to argue with their God, and why should I (or anyone else) interfere?
The Covid Rouge do not operate here, though they may operate where you are. We have closed the border to keep you on your side of it. If you venture over here be prepared to be shot dead.
Re: (Score:2)
The first question is whether automated contact tracing apps are necessary and serve the greater good for all those tracked by them.
And when you see "the greater good" mentioned, you know you've gone down the wrong path.
Re: (Score:2)
One should be skeptical when the see the phrase "the greater good". There are people who believe that eugenics is a path the the greater good.
Track and Trace until it is under control (Score:2)
I’m living in Taiwan, and I was exposed to the Wuhan virus on a flight and subsequently contacted by Taiwan’s CDC to self-quarantine (did not get sick). I gladly was geo-fenced using my mobile phone ( https://www.privateintern [privateint...access.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously it should be used for that. (Score:2)
In the current circumstances, that's obviously needed.
Whether there's anyone can be trusted to manage that process is an entirely different question.
Re: (Score:2)
No... (Score:1)
I think having a timestamp is good enough granularity. You know where you were, the government doesn't need to know too.
Make uninfected people wear yellow stars. (Score:1)
No, eats power and GPS isn't needed. (Score:3)
Repost of earlier related thread:
How it works...
From what I understand...
Your device is switched into low power bluetooth (2m / 6' / low energy) mode.
Your device communicates with any other similarly configured devices (other people) exchanging the bluetooth MAC (serial number) information and timestamps the pair/unpair event in a database on your device.
If user-B finds that they have CoViD-19, they flag this on their device, this uploads their MAC (serial number) only to a remote server.
That remote server collates all the MACs (serial numbers) and pushes that delta list to all the devices. (May be geofenced?)
Your device scans the delta list of infected MACs and compares it agains your devices database looking for any matches.
If no match is found... great!
If a match is found... your device generates a simple risk graph based on the amount of time paired with the infected user and displays this information (risk, contact time and duration) on the users device. You need to action any events; only your device knows that there has been an exposure (database match).
Cleanup:The device's database can flush events over a certain period (say four weeks) as we don't care beyond that, no?
This is what I gather based on a short BBC radio (podcast) article... I could be way off the mark in detail but that's the big-picture idea... they may be more invasive than this and I can see people poisoning the system with alerts unless there's some sort of authentication. Food for thought...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/p... [bbc.co.uk]
Starts at 14:08
Re: (Score:2)
Should? (Score:2)
It certainly will.
Setting aside the obvious trust problems (Score:2)
How would that even work? GPS doesn't work well inside, and even when it does, it has an error measured in many meters.
This is even worse at determining if there is a risk of infection than Blutooth.
So even if we somehow magically had some entity we could trust that data to, it simply wouldn't work as well as much saner alternatives.
There simply is NO way ... (Score:1)
... you can trust any gov to not abuse this feature when it's in the field and google and apple support it. The opportunity to use this as ultimate surveillance tooling for whatever agencies is just to big. NSA for example wants this for over 2 decades already.
Who do I believe? (Score:2)
But Apple and Google also published exactly how their API is supposed to be used and how it works, so it is not just that I trust them more to be right on software development questions, I hav
Yes (Score:3)
GPS
But the GPS radio shouldn't be on all the time. As others here point out - it'll kill battery and won't help in covered spaces.
Bluetooth Triangulation
Instead, Apple and Google probably are capturing GPS positions infrequently. In denser urban settings, they'd scale GPS back further and accept Bluetooth (probably 'Bluetooth Low Energy' or 'BLE') data-packets with high-precision position data for surrounding phones (perhaps those phones performed GPS measurement recently and their gyroscopes/accelerometers indicates position only changed by a small amount).
The receiving phone uses this data to can calculate its own position, and estimate distance of other phones closest. This paper notes [nih.gov], how 'transmit' phones can also vary BLE transmit power and convey this info in their BLE data packets. Accounting for the variation as measured in the receiver makes strength even more precise.
Wifi and Legacy Bluetooth Adhoc Networks
The technique above probably only works for Bluetooth (more specifically 'Bluetooth Low Energy' or BLE). Whatever happened to Wifi adhoc mode? Half of the earth uses older phone technology and contact tracing with BLE won't work for them.
Privacy and Data Ownership
Re: privacy -- that's another ball game. I think all data on your phone should be completely accessible to its owner. The user should be able to grant data access to apps. Say, an app sets up a decentralised peer-to-peer social network for a remote mountain community with spotty internet connectivity. Members of the community should be able to effectively communicate to all within BLE or Wifi radio range, without the need for a centralised website or service.
Trick question (Score:2)
STOP violating the constitution! (Score:1)
The optimistic view (Score:2)
The developer they asked come up with the _obvious_ solution: Every phone detects its location, and the time, and submits t
Does that GPS data ... (Score:2)
See also the spec of the European app (Score:2)
See also the specification of the protocol developped in Europe, with only BlueTooth: ROBust and privacy-presERving proximity Tracing protocol [github.com].
Re: Want 100%? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And unfortunately, this extends to the part of the town as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If the pres said "Apple/Google, track by tower or GPS, whatever you have to do."
The Orange one should also tell Apple to modify the flashlight app so that it can shine into your body and kill COVID-19 inside your body.
Re: (Score:2)
About 20% of Americans already had it and about 50% or Europeans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] It is time to stop the lockdowns and go back to normal.
You're adorable.
Did you have any credible information to go along with your wishful thinking?
Re: Why bother now that it is practically over? (Score:2)
It's time to end the lockdowns, remove the Covid Rouge governors and officials, and bring them up on changes for their crimes against humanity.