Apple and Google pressured to block unofficial contact tracing apps
New York's Attorney General wants Apple and Google to limit all coronavirus contact tracing apps except those developed by public health agencies.
New York Attorney General Letitia James is concerned about the number of unofficial coronavirus apps on the App Store
New York Attorney General Letitia James has written to both Apple and Google expressing what she calls continued concerns over the number of unofficial coronavirus contact tracing apps that are now on both the App Store and Google Play.
Writing to Apple senior vice president and general counsel Katherine L. Adams, James welcomes the company's "efforts to address the privacy and implementation concerns" that she has previously discussed with them. However, according to James in her letter, Apple has told her there are issues that it will not dictate to app developers. Specifically:
She chiefly wants Apple to "allow only public health authorities verified by Apple" to be allowed to "make such apps available on the App Store." However, this is specifically about apps that transmit personal health information, so James is not seeking to ban apps that provide other information "such as notifications about exposure."
Beyond this, James says that Apple should "bar developers... from using data from the app to identify users," and from "using targeted advertising or in-app sales."
Attorney General James has sent an almost identical letter to Google's chief legal officer, Kent Walker.
New York Attorney General Letitia James is concerned about the number of unofficial coronavirus apps on the App Store
New York Attorney General Letitia James has written to both Apple and Google expressing what she calls continued concerns over the number of unofficial coronavirus contact tracing apps that are now on both the App Store and Google Play.
Writing to Apple senior vice president and general counsel Katherine L. Adams, James welcomes the company's "efforts to address the privacy and implementation concerns" that she has previously discussed with them. However, according to James in her letter, Apple has told her there are issues that it will not dictate to app developers. Specifically:
James wants to "ensure that both exposure notification apps and contact tracing apps protect user information," and asks Apple to take certain "additional steps." These are concerned chiefly with who can develop apps, and then what those developers can do with the information users provide them.How the apps will verify the accuracy of COVID-19 diagnoses that the apps use to trigger exposure notifications.Specific parameters for defining an "exposure notification" event (developers will use time and distance variables within a certain range).
She chiefly wants Apple to "allow only public health authorities verified by Apple" to be allowed to "make such apps available on the App Store." However, this is specifically about apps that transmit personal health information, so James is not seeking to ban apps that provide other information "such as notifications about exposure."
Beyond this, James says that Apple should "bar developers... from using data from the app to identify users," and from "using targeted advertising or in-app sales."
Attorney General James has sent an almost identical letter to Google's chief legal officer, Kent Walker.
Comments
We saw the importance of effective contact tracing this week in China: When they had an outbreak of 57 cases in Beijing they quickly pinpointed the source: a single wholesale grocer. So, now they can perform a focused testing program to identify all who may have been infected and block any further spread of the virus. That's what a high quality contact tracing system can do to protect society form this scurge.
Apple doesn’t have governmental powers, and I have a problem with governments demanding that Apple take over that role.
And "decidedly undecidable" is certainly an apt description.
Apple does not have a contact tracing app. The closest it comes is a voluntary exposure notification thingee that essentially worthless to public health agencies trying to protect the public.
No. Apple and Google have jointly implemented an API in their OSen that allows specifically authorised apps to use Bluetooth's Low Energy Secure Connection protocol in the background to detect proximity of other users running said authorised app and duration of the encounter, and to communicate securely with a server.
If people won't use it then it's not effective. The most effective contract tracing methods are mandatory such as those in China and South Korea. The Chinese people have no choice other than just accept it. That is China. It's not a patriotic thing, it's all they've known.
Not even you, patriotic George, will commit to accepting what they require will you? Armbands and gps trackers, credit card purchase logging and tracking, police cameras on most streets, an assortment of other George-tracking methods, military-enforced embargoes/lockdowns on various regions? Heck look no further than the uproar over National Guard forces locking down certain areas due to the recent riots. That makes "like China" or "like South Korea" a non-starter doesn't it? You don't like using Google because it "knows who you are" even if you can get far more relevant results, personally benefit, if Google knows who George is.
IMO People will avoid a government offered app requiring personal data collection and identity for the same reason if given a choice. Faux news and faux arguments both have the same benefits, none, and that's what you do implying we in the West should do like China does. You're employing a Faux talking point.
Your political ideology has killed more Americans than any terrorist or the cumulative total dead from all of our wars since WW-II.
So this one single question doesn't require rocket science George, just an honest hand.
Are you advocating that the US employ China-style tracking to control Covid-19, which factually requires new national laws rolling back certain personal liberties, new monitoring authority, and a revised legal understanding on military troop deployment on US soil and the authority they have? There's no confusing words in the question.