Contact tracing app vetted by Apple found to share data with Foursquare and Google

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,251member
    blktube said:
    Maybe if people practiced better hygiene this could have been avoided also. Almost 100% of people get this by toughing a surface with the virus and then touching their eyes, putting a finger in their nose or mouth. This isn't an airborne virus. You can get it from an infected person that sneezes on you if you are close to them but that is a very small percentage of the cases. Would be nice if people stopped blaming someone else and take personal responsibility for what happens to them. It's not rocket science.

    WASH YOUR HANDS FREQUENTLY & DON'T STICK YOUR FINGERS IN YOUR EYES, NOSE OR MOUTH! But that's probably too much to ask for people nowdays. They are lazy and want everything done for them. LOL
    Holy ignorant bullshit, batman. Nope. It's indeed airborne. Not as bad as measles, but you can get it from non-sneezes -- from aerosols dispersed from breathing and speaking. Especially in a small space with recirculated air. Yes, wash your hands, but no, it's not enough. 

    I pray you aren't anyone's caretaker. 


    fastasleepjdb8167
  • Reply 22 of 43
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,251member

    apple ][ said:
    Sorry, but I won't be downloading any of these "contact tracing" apps, no matter who is behind them. They are a bit too late also, in my opinion, now that things are beginning to relax and loosen up everywhere. The hysteria has gone far enough.

    If anybody disagrees, and they are free to do so, then they are welcome to  lock themselves up inside of their homes for the next few years if they'd like.
    It's not hysteria, science-doubter. The facts remain unchanged, even if the social distancing and lockdown flattened the curve. 

    And now that people are moving again, it makes it a great time to use a system like this. 






    command_ffastasleepGeorgeBMacmuthuk_vanalingamjdb8167watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 43
    command_fcommand_f Posts: 396member
    lkrupp said:
    Anyone who downloads and installs these contact tracing apps should have their heads examined. We can’t trust ANY of these bastards, including Apple.
    Really? I trust Apple (beyond the usual errors that everyone makes), mostly because their motives are clear. At worst, it's not in their selfish interest not to protect our data. You have to pick who you trust but you do have to pick someone; if not, bin that smart phone, and the feature phone, because the network tracks them all. They kind-of have to, of course, so they can deliver your calls to you.

    As to "these tracing apps", they aren't all the same. The Apple/Google framework is yet to be released* so it can't have failed already, the UK's NHS app uses entirely an different implementation and they've open-sourced their software so that the ethical hackers can help them improve it.

    You can't use the fact that one app sounds as though it's dodgy to condemn the whole class. That's like saying Android phones are poor so iPhones must be too.

    *My bad: it was released yesterday. I think my point still stands.
    edited May 2020 fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 43
    command_fcommand_f Posts: 396member
    mjtomlin said:
    apple ][ said:
    Sorry, but I won't be downloading any of these "contact tracing" apps, no matter who is behind them. They are a bit too late also, in my opinion, now that things are beginning to relax and loosen up everywhere. The hysteria has gone far enough.

    I completely disagree with you... NOW is the best time to start contact tracing and using this Exposure Notification API. ANYTHING to help warn people that they might be infected so they can quarantine themselves to mitigate the spread of the virus to others.
    Absolutely right. The whole point (and of lockdown) is to manage the infection rate and buy time until we have an effective vaccine. The alternative is to let nature take its course and achieve herd immunity by letting the weak (those who get a bad reaction) just die. Not much of a strategy for a government or an individual.
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    And THAT is why no one can be trusted with this information.
    lkrupp
  • Reply 26 of 43
    command_fcommand_f Posts: 396member
    larryjw said:
    I keep wondering why Apple is unable to enforce privacy restrictions on apps. I take it as a given that automatic enforcement is hard. 

    But, as we’ve seen forever, relying on the honesty and integrity of developers is a mistake. 

    Also clear, that a fine-grained granularity of permissions one may grant or withhold is non-existent. 

    And like this company they claim they are protectIng your privacy by selling to a third party who is merely contractually required to protect privacy and not use the data received for nefarious purposes. Nod, Nod. Wink. Wink. 

    Is it even theoretically possible to architect a privacy system that allows users to control what information is shared and what is not? 

    My guess is the difficulties are at least tied to proving program correctness. I only know two languages that have support for protecting against illegal input. One is Mathematica. The second is the Scheme implementation Racket. 
    This case does have some very strange aspects. I presume there'll be an inquiry to establish if the procurement and the contractors were just not very smart or whether there were other aspects in play. I don't think the US is doing itself any favours by developing multiple systems rather than concentrating the effort and expertise on a single candidate. It's like the problem we will have in Europe when people travel between countries except I guess you guys cross state lines a lot more that we cross national ones.

    Your point about about how to architect a system giving users control is valid. Both the Apple/Google framework and the UK NHS app address this by not letting data off the phone without explicit permission from the user at the time of sending it. When that permission is given, a well defined (and small) amount of data is released. Any system can have bugs and leak data but these two architectures make it much harder to get wrong so, with a competent development team, they have a very good chance of succeeding.

    I keep banging on about the NHS system being open-sourced but that should be a comfort to those who doubt its data handling claims; it should also improve the quality of the software. Apple and Google working together should improve their quality too, as long as they go about it the right way and review each other's work, then test it properly.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 27 of 43
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,176member
    blktube said:
    Maybe if people practiced better hygiene this could have been avoided also. Almost 100% of people get this by toughing a surface with the virus and then touching their eyes, putting a finger in their nose or mouth. This isn't an airborne virus. You can get it from an infected person that sneezes on you if you are close to them but that is a very small percentage of the cases. Would be nice if people stopped blaming someone else and take personal responsibility for what happens to them. It's not rocket science.

    WASH YOUR HANDS FREQUENTLY & DON'T STICK YOUR FINGERS IN YOUR EYES, NOSE OR MOUTH! But that's probably too much to ask for people nowdays. They are lazy and want everything done for them. LOL
    Wrong — it absolutely is an airborne virus which has been clearly demonstrated. China has mapped transmission within dining rooms of restaurants and between passengers on busses who had no direct contact. CDC has even downgraded transmissibility via fomites and promoted airborne person to person transmission as the primary factor.
    edited May 2020 GeorgeBMacjdb8167watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 43
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,176member
    And THAT is why no one can be trusted with this information.
    Why, because an app used the same Google/Foursquare APIs that hundreds of thousands of other apps use?
  • Reply 29 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    It's not hysteria, science-doubter. The facts remain unchanged, even if the social distancing and lockdown flattened the curve. 

    And now that people are moving again, it makes it a great time to use a system like this. 





    I am not a science doubter. I am a people doubter and I am always skeptical of those who have an agenda, and we have seen many in power who do have an agenda and who are using this virus to further their own demented goals.
    lkruppwatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    apple ][ said:
    It's not hysteria, science-doubter. The facts remain unchanged, even if the social distancing and lockdown flattened the curve. 

    And now that people are moving again, it makes it a great time to use a system like this. 





    I am not a science doubter. I am a people doubter and I am always skeptical of those who have an agenda, and we have seen many in power who do have an agenda and who are using this virus to further their own demented goals.

    Unfortunately that kind of cynicism gets you Trumped -- by conmen promoting and exploiting fear to take advantage of those who trust nothing and nobody.
  • Reply 31 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    command_f said:
    lkrupp said:
    Anyone who downloads and installs these contact tracing apps should have their heads examined. We can’t trust ANY of these bastards, including Apple.
    Really? I trust Apple (beyond the usual errors that everyone makes), mostly because their motives are clear. At worst, it's not in their selfish interest not to protect our data. You have to pick who you trust but you do have to pick someone; if not, bin that smart phone, and the feature phone, because the network tracks them all. They kind-of have to, of course, so they can deliver your calls to you.

    As to "these tracing apps", they aren't all the same. The Apple/Google framework is yet to be released* so it can't have failed already, the UK's NHS app uses entirely an different implementation and they've open-sourced their software so that the ethical hackers can help them improve it.

    You can't use the fact that one app sounds as though it's dodgy to condemn the whole class. That's like saying Android phones are poor so iPhones must be too.

    *My bad: it was released yesterday. I think my point still stands.
    Yes, Apple's motives are clear:   promote privacy above all else.  And normally that is a good thing.

    But, in this case, putting privacy above all else means putting it above the lives of tens of thousands --- because a lack of effective testing  & follow-up tracing means death to tens of thousands.  Are you willing to sacrifice your own life or the life of your mother or father, grandmother or grandfather for "privacy".

    Those in China and S. Korea put their country, their lives and their economy above "privacy".
    Republicans are willing to sacrifice their country, their lives and their economy for some supposed privacy -- which they gave away 20 years ago in their Patriot Act anyway!

    command_f
  • Reply 32 of 43
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 349member
    lkrupp said:
    sdbryan said:
    lkrupp said:
    Anyone who downloads and installs these contact tracing apps should have their heads examined. We can’t trust ANY of these bastards, including Apple. ...

    Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to ‘examine’ the protocols that Apple/Google have published to see if there is some privacy defect? Assuming a rigidly cynical position for all contact tracing efforts could lead to reduced ability to contain outbreaks which would have real world consequences. I hope security experts do vigorously examine contract tracing efforts and I am sure they will. But unless and until a problem is discovered I would encourage everyone to participate so that fewer people get sick and die. Because it is a global pandemic.
    You might have a point IF this were a rare thing. But every time an app like this comes out (for whatever purpose) a security researcher soon discovers it’s phoning home with all sorts of collected data. In the case of this app it was discovered that it was not only collecting data but sending it to third parties, in this case Foursquare and Google.


    The app you refer to was not using the Apple/Google protocol. It was just an app in Apple's app store. Not a sterling endorsement of the app store screening process but if they were security research types that is probably not the job they would have. Also it is not obvious why Foursquare would be interested since the Apple/Google protocol apps are disallowed access to location API's. In other words that article was a red herring though the author might not be aware of how misleading it was.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 43
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 349member
    command_f said:
    lkrupp said:
    Anyone who downloads and installs these contact tracing apps should have their heads examined. We can’t trust ANY of these bastards, including Apple.
    Really? I trust Apple (beyond the usual errors that everyone makes), mostly because their motives are clear. At worst, it's not in their selfish interest not to protect our data. You have to pick who you trust but you do have to pick someone; if not, bin that smart phone, and the feature phone, because the network tracks them all. They kind-of have to, of course, so they can deliver your calls to you.

    As to "these tracing apps", they aren't all the same. The Apple/Google framework is yet to be released* so it can't have failed already, the UK's NHS app uses entirely an different implementation and they've open-sourced their software so that the ethical hackers can help them improve it.

    You can't use the fact that one app sounds as though it's dodgy to condemn the whole class. That's like saying Android phones are poor so iPhones must be too.

    *My bad: it was released yesterday. I think my point still stands.
    Yes, Apple's motives are clear:   promote privacy above all else.  And normally that is a good thing.

    But, in this case, putting privacy above all else means putting it above the lives of tens of thousands --- because a lack of effective testing  & follow-up tracing means death to tens of thousands.  Are you willing to sacrifice your own life or the life of your mother or father, grandmother or grandfather for "privacy".

    Those in China and S. Korea put their country, their lives and their economy above "privacy".
    Republicans are willing to sacrifice their country, their lives and their economy for some supposed privacy -- which they gave away 20 years ago in their Patriot Act anyway!

    Has anyone else bothered to read the documents that Apple/Google have made available describing the protocol and framework? It is helpful when one critiques the parties involved. The protocol preserves privacy while enabling robust contact tracing. Of course contact tracing does require participation. If you choose to not participate because of privacy concerns then you have the opportunity to PROVE why the protocol fails (who knows? it might). But I don't see anyone even attempting to provider such a proof.
    watto_cobracommand_f
  • Reply 34 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sdbryan said:
    command_f said:
    lkrupp said:
    Anyone who downloads and installs these contact tracing apps should have their heads examined. We can’t trust ANY of these bastards, including Apple.
    Really? I trust Apple (beyond the usual errors that everyone makes), mostly because their motives are clear. At worst, it's not in their selfish interest not to protect our data. You have to pick who you trust but you do have to pick someone; if not, bin that smart phone, and the feature phone, because the network tracks them all. They kind-of have to, of course, so they can deliver your calls to you.

    As to "these tracing apps", they aren't all the same. The Apple/Google framework is yet to be released* so it can't have failed already, the UK's NHS app uses entirely an different implementation and they've open-sourced their software so that the ethical hackers can help them improve it.

    You can't use the fact that one app sounds as though it's dodgy to condemn the whole class. That's like saying Android phones are poor so iPhones must be too.

    *My bad: it was released yesterday. I think my point still stands.
    Yes, Apple's motives are clear:   promote privacy above all else.  And normally that is a good thing.

    But, in this case, putting privacy above all else means putting it above the lives of tens of thousands --- because a lack of effective testing  & follow-up tracing means death to tens of thousands.  Are you willing to sacrifice your own life or the life of your mother or father, grandmother or grandfather for "privacy".

    Those in China and S. Korea put their country, their lives and their economy above "privacy".
    Republicans are willing to sacrifice their country, their lives and their economy for some supposed privacy -- which they gave away 20 years ago in their Patriot Act anyway!

    Has anyone else bothered to read the documents that Apple/Google have made available describing the protocol and framework? It is helpful when one critiques the parties involved. The protocol preserves privacy while enabling robust contact tracing. Of course contact tracing does require participation. If you choose to not participate because of privacy concerns then you have the opportunity to PROVE why the protocol fails (who knows? it might). But I don't see anyone even attempting to provider such a proof.
    Yes, it does preserve privacy
    No, it does not do contact tracing (you might look up what the term means).   That is why they changed its name -- because it does not do contact tracing.

  • Reply 35 of 43
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 349member
    sdbryan said:
    command_f said:
    lkrupp said:
    Anyone who downloads and installs these contact tracing apps should have their heads examined. We can’t trust ANY of these bastards, including Apple.
    Really? I trust Apple (beyond the usual errors that everyone makes), mostly because their motives are clear. At worst, it's not in their selfish interest not to protect our data. You have to pick who you trust but you do have to pick someone; if not, bin that smart phone, and the feature phone, because the network tracks them all. They kind-of have to, of course, so they can deliver your calls to you.

    As to "these tracing apps", they aren't all the same. The Apple/Google framework is yet to be released* so it can't have failed already, the UK's NHS app uses entirely an different implementation and they've open-sourced their software so that the ethical hackers can help them improve it.

    You can't use the fact that one app sounds as though it's dodgy to condemn the whole class. That's like saying Android phones are poor so iPhones must be too.

    *My bad: it was released yesterday. I think my point still stands.
    Yes, Apple's motives are clear:   promote privacy above all else.  And normally that is a good thing.

    But, in this case, putting privacy above all else means putting it above the lives of tens of thousands --- because a lack of effective testing  & follow-up tracing means death to tens of thousands.  Are you willing to sacrifice your own life or the life of your mother or father, grandmother or grandfather for "privacy".

    Those in China and S. Korea put their country, their lives and their economy above "privacy".
    Republicans are willing to sacrifice their country, their lives and their economy for some supposed privacy -- which they gave away 20 years ago in their Patriot Act anyway!

    Has anyone else bothered to read the documents that Apple/Google have made available describing the protocol and framework? It is helpful when one critiques the parties involved. The protocol preserves privacy while enabling robust contact tracing. Of course contact tracing does require participation. If you choose to not participate because of privacy concerns then you have the opportunity to PROVE why the protocol fails (who knows? it might). But I don't see anyone even attempting to provider such a proof.
    Yes, it does preserve privacy
    No, it does not do contact tracing (you might look up what the term means).   That is why they changed its name -- because it does not do contact tracing.

    OK, I believe I can see where you are coming from. Yes, the way it is designed it is clearly an opt-in system. First you can choose not to use it all. Even if you use the system and you get tested positive you again get to choose to notify and you need verification by medical personnel that you did indeed test positive.

    Assuming those conditions are met and the devices register that transmission of the virus was possible, you get notification that you were exposed and should self-quarantine and get tested. You are not informed who, where, or when about the event but you do learn of the exposure. I am sure it does not fit the detailed description of contact tracing that has been around before and is massively labor intensive and privacy invasive and completely hopeless for notifying people you don't even know but were possibly exposed. Even among people you know expecting exhaustive recall over a possibly extended period is asking a lot.

    The clear advantage of exposure detection is that it doesn't depend on possibly faulty memory or knowing everyone's identity just in case they might need to be notified some time in the future. Exposure detection does depend on participation but it is cost free and exhaustively vigilant. There could be a cost for periodic virus testing but that should be provided cost free by the state if there is any rationality at all.

    Conventional contact tracing for sexually transmitted diseases makes more sense because you really should know the identities (and when and where) of persons who need to be contacted. For something as insidious as Covid-19 it is a different game.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 36 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sdbryan said:
    sdbryan said:
    command_f said:
    lkrupp said:
    Anyone who downloads and installs these contact tracing apps should have their heads examined. We can’t trust ANY of these bastards, including Apple.
    Really? I trust Apple (beyond the usual errors that everyone makes), mostly because their motives are clear. At worst, it's not in their selfish interest not to protect our data. You have to pick who you trust but you do have to pick someone; if not, bin that smart phone, and the feature phone, because the network tracks them all. They kind-of have to, of course, so they can deliver your calls to you.

    As to "these tracing apps", they aren't all the same. The Apple/Google framework is yet to be released* so it can't have failed already, the UK's NHS app uses entirely an different implementation and they've open-sourced their software so that the ethical hackers can help them improve it.

    You can't use the fact that one app sounds as though it's dodgy to condemn the whole class. That's like saying Android phones are poor so iPhones must be too.

    *My bad: it was released yesterday. I think my point still stands.
    Yes, Apple's motives are clear:   promote privacy above all else.  And normally that is a good thing.

    But, in this case, putting privacy above all else means putting it above the lives of tens of thousands --- because a lack of effective testing  & follow-up tracing means death to tens of thousands.  Are you willing to sacrifice your own life or the life of your mother or father, grandmother or grandfather for "privacy".

    Those in China and S. Korea put their country, their lives and their economy above "privacy".
    Republicans are willing to sacrifice their country, their lives and their economy for some supposed privacy -- which they gave away 20 years ago in their Patriot Act anyway!

    Has anyone else bothered to read the documents that Apple/Google have made available describing the protocol and framework? It is helpful when one critiques the parties involved. The protocol preserves privacy while enabling robust contact tracing. Of course contact tracing does require participation. If you choose to not participate because of privacy concerns then you have the opportunity to PROVE why the protocol fails (who knows? it might). But I don't see anyone even attempting to provider such a proof.
    Yes, it does preserve privacy
    No, it does not do contact tracing (you might look up what the term means).   That is why they changed its name -- because it does not do contact tracing.

    OK, I believe I can see where you are coming from. Yes, the way it is designed it is clearly an opt-in system. First you can choose not to use it all. Even if you use the system and you get tested positive you again get to choose to notify and you need verification by medical personnel that you did indeed test positive.

    Assuming those conditions are met and the devices register that transmission of the virus was possible, you get notification that you were exposed and should self-quarantine and get tested. You are not informed who, where, or when about the event but you do learn of the exposure. I am sure it does not fit the detailed description of contact tracing that has been around before and is massively labor intensive and privacy invasive and completely hopeless for notifying people you don't even know but were possibly exposed. Even among people you know expecting exhaustive recall over a possibly extended period is asking a lot.

    The clear advantage of exposure detection is that it doesn't depend on possibly faulty memory or knowing everyone's identity just in case they might need to be notified some time in the future. Exposure detection does depend on participation but it is cost free and exhaustively vigilant. There could be a cost for periodic virus testing but that should be provided cost free by the state if there is any rationality at all.

    Conventional contact tracing for sexually transmitted diseases makes more sense because you really should know the identities (and when and where) of persons who need to be contacted. For something as insidious as Covid-19 it is a different game.
    The core difference is:   the Apple-Google app is based on egocentric motivation:  You will be notified that you may have been exposed (assuming everybody signs on).

    Real Contact Tracing on the other hand is based on societal benefit motivation:   If a person tests positive then government agents trace your contacts and find those you were in prolonged contact with so they can be tested -- with the societal goal of removing Typhoid Mary's from the streets and businesses for the benefit of that nation and society.

    And, in places like Korea who managed the virus effectively and never had to shut down, they did not rely only on memory but used multiple means -- including closed circuit TV, credit card transactions, etc. to track a person's movements.   Obviously it worked.

    Here though that is not an option:  Partly because Libertarians would go nuts but mostly because we wanted to keep our numbers down for political reasons and therefor never ramped up the prerequisite testing to make effective tracing possible.

    The difference is:  the U.S. has become less patriotic (despite the flag waving) while in other nations people willing to sacrifice for the betterment of their nation and society.  And, that transition has happened fairly recently.   In my lifetime I remember people thinking John Kennedy was a great president when he said:  "Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".   Today, he would be ridiculed and boo'd off the stage by those professing to be patriots.

  • Reply 37 of 43
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 349member
    At least we both seem to be living in the same reality even if we don't come to the same conclusions. I would add at least one additional factor to the discussion. Last summer I was in Japan for several weeks in several different cities including Tokyo and Hiroshima. As an American I was stunned by how many people I saw wearing face masks. This was last summer. The countries of East Asia have fairly recent experience of pandemics that were airborne. I can only imagine how prevalent face masks were in Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan this spring.

    I am inclined to believe that may be an important factor and possibly more significant than the need to set up a pervasive surveillance society with facial recognition and massive personal tracking. I don't believe one has to be a libertarian "nut" to find that prospect chilling. After all once that infrastructure is constructed it is available to leaders who do not feel they are constrained by conventions, laws, constitutions, reality, decency, etc. I would rather use the privacy preserving technology that is feasible now but wouldn't be without the ubiquity of the powerful computing and communication devices we have.
  • Reply 38 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sdbryan said:
    At least we both seem to be living in the same reality even if we don't come to the same conclusions. I would add at least one additional factor to the discussion. Last summer I was in Japan for several weeks in several different cities including Tokyo and Hiroshima. As an American I was stunned by how many people I saw wearing face masks. This was last summer. The countries of East Asia have fairly recent experience of pandemics that were airborne. I can only imagine how prevalent face masks were in Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan this spring.

    I am inclined to believe that may be an important factor and possibly more significant than the need to set up a pervasive surveillance society with facial recognition and massive personal tracking. I don't believe one has to be a libertarian "nut" to find that prospect chilling. After all once that infrastructure is constructed it is available to leaders who do not feel they are constrained by conventions, laws, constitutions, reality, decency, etc. I would rather use the privacy preserving technology that is feasible now but wouldn't be without the ubiquity of the powerful computing and communication devices we have.

    Personally I find 100,000 dead Americans chilling.  But, that's just me.

    As for your implication that tracing is unnecessary, both history and logic say otherwise.
    edited May 2020
  • Reply 39 of 43
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 349member
    Personally I find 100,000 dead Americans chilling.  But, that's just me.

    As for your implication that tracing is unnecessary, both history and logic say otherwise.
    I wouldn’t bother to reply but I find your implication that I don’t find the scale of deaths chilling to be insulting. Also that only use of contact tracing is legitimate. I read the article in the Washington Post today about Germany’s contact tracing which was informative. It focused mainly on the details of the mechanics of old-school contact tracing and pointed out the challenges. What was skipped over possibly because it is geneeral knowledge is that the person in charge in Germany is a scientist with a doctorate in quantum chemistry rather than the arrogant idiot we have so their response was competent and ours was not.

    When the crisis started the only available way to surpress transmission was traditional contact tracing which should have been deployed. Only in the last few days has the infrastructure for Exposure Notification been put in place with the update to iOS 13.5. It is appalling how prevalent the effort is being cavalierly dismissed. It can help in situations where traditional contact tracing would fail and requires only the slightest effort by individuals. Rather than ramble on I’ll finish with a quote from the Overview Document:

    ” How can technology augment conventional contact tracing?
    Technology can play an important role in those efforts. Mobile devices can be used in an automated and scalable way to help determine who has been exposed to a person that later reports a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. For example, they can be used to send a rapid notification to the exposed person with instructions on next steps. These notifications may be beneficial by alerting an exposed individual faster than they would be notified via conventional contact tracing. They will enable public health authorities to contact and provide guidance to the individual and, where appropriate, include them in conventional contact tracing efforts. Using digital exposure notifications is new and individual health authorities are determining how they best fit into their own public health systems.”
  • Reply 40 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sdbryan said:
    Personally I find 100,000 dead Americans chilling.  But, that's just me.

    As for your implication that tracing is unnecessary, both history and logic say otherwise.
    I wouldn’t bother to reply but I find your implication that I don’t find the scale of deaths chilling to be insulting. ....

    When the crisis started the only available way to surpress transmission was traditional contact tracing which should have been deployed. ...

    Insulted?   You should be -- suggesting that your privacy is more important than my life -- that's an insult to every American (and me!).

    So, you bought the bullshit that traditional contact tracing was (and is) the only option?  That's silly.
    The first infection in South Korea occurred the same day that the first infection occurred here in the U.S.   They immediately jumped on it and instituted wide ranging testing and contact tracing using a variety of technologies and kept the virus under control.   Smart phones were and are part of that.

    Here, in the richest, most powerful nation on earth with the (supposedly) world's greatest healthcare system and what was formerly world class public health agencies you say we are reduced to using contact tracing from 50 or more years ago?   Huh?   How is that defensible?



Sign In or Register to comment.