lostkiwi

gatorguy said:

maestro64 said:

I'm also not interested hearing about someone who passed me in the grocery store who tested positive days later and now I have to go seek medical attention. This kind of notifications is just going to drive people crazy

You don't know how it works? In order for you to receive a notification you must have been within 6 feet of a verified infected person for at least 15 minutes. Passing by someone would not be registered so you're saved from all those notifications that would make you crazy.

Not wanting to be aware that you had an extended exposure period with someone tested and verified to have an active infection sounds pretty silly to me. At least you'd know and then it's up to you to decide whether to act on that information or not. 

15 minutes?  Interesting, in the Apple/Google graphic it mentioned 10 minutes and I have heard reports the cut off point is actually 5 minutes (I can't find them now).
But, like you said the main thing is it won't create alerts for everybody you pass on the street.

Saw it & thought it was great!  Very enjoyable movie.

gatorguy said:

lostkiwi said:

EDIT just went through the Apple/Google Contact Tracing Bluetooth Specification.  Page 3 goes in their 'Advertisement Payload' then details 'Advertising Behaviour' and 'Advertising Flow'.
Well, screw that then.  I will be doing everything I can to opt out/disable this on my devices.  There is no need to make money out of this crisis, it is not like Apple or Google are facing layoffs/financial issues because of the pandemic.  I am aware that they have shareholders to keep happy... but really?  This is just bad taste.

It's not "advertising" as in commercial ads. Advertising refers to your device announcing its presence to the receiving Bluetooth beacon. Poor tho technically accurate choice of words. You won't be served ads and the two companies will not be seeing any revenue from it so put down your pitchfork.
https://www.apple.com/covid19/contacttracing

Thanks GG. If that is indeed the case then I will place my pitchfork into storage, for now.
That interpretation never occurred to me - perhaps there should be a bit more of an explanation in the summary of the use of the word 'advertising' in the covering documentation.

That being said it seems the new system is a ways off - I heard mid-May, so the open sourced Singapore method could be a valuable method in the interim.

Here in NZ our Prime Minister said yesterday our government are in talks with the Singapore Government to use their 'Tracetogether' app.  Apparently the project is going to be outsourced by Singapore.  App information is here: https://www.tracetogether.gov.sg  

It would be hard to find a country that has been more successful at fighting SARS-CoV 2 than Singapore.  Looking at the app it seems they have put a lot of effort into preserving privacy but still making it as efficient as possible.  I guess the only problem would be getting users to download the app in sufficient numbers to make it work.  Works fine in a small country like Singapore with high trust in its government - the U.S...... maybe not so much.

EDIT just went through the Apple/Google Contact Tracing Bluetooth Specification.  Page 3 goes in their 'Advertisement Payload' then details 'Advertising Behaviour' and 'Advertising Flow'.
Well, screw that then.  I will be doing everything I can to opt out/disable this on my devices.  There is no need to make money out of this crisis, it is not like Apple or Google are facing layoffs/financial issues because of the pandemic.  I am aware that they have shareholders to keep happy... but really?  This is just bad taste.

That said, if my government does use the previously mentioned opensourced app then I will be using it.  Assuming it is free of advertising crapiness.

StrangeDays said:

Soli said:

CloudTalkin said:

Soli said:

CloudTalkin said:

TheCodingArt said:

I understand compromise, but come on. This just makes iCloud a less desirable platform.

How does it make iCloud a less desirable platform?  It's not like Apple is removing encryption from iCloud.  It's never been encrypted and it performs as it always has.  No one is losing any functionality.  You are no less protected than you were before this article was written.  Remember, we're talking about iCloud backups.

Rant: More people need to understand the tech they use.  Half the hand wringing wouldn't exist if we did.  Not picking on you.  Just using your quote as a jump off point.
/end rant

Apple advertises how they're all about privacy and security to *gasp* attract customers that care about privacy and security, and then it comes out that Apple's very own iCloud service doesn't allow for the privacy any and security they expected. You really don't see that as a sticking point for those Cloud users?

Comes out?  What exactly do you mean comes out?  Haven't we always known that iCloud backups weren't encrypted?  We just recently had an article on AI about the biannual transparency report detailing they amount, frequency, and types of data that Apple shares.  What did everyone think they were sharing?

Afaik, iCloud backups have never been encrypted and Apple has said they weren't encrypted from the beginning.  Has everyone just ignored that and relied on Apple's marketing for their information? People who take Apple's marketing as fact and make additional assumptions based on that marketing... yeah, not really seeing what you seem to be seeing.  Apple's marketing does what marketing is supposed to do: make their products seem desirable.  It's effective but it shouldn't replace a person's desire for actual facts.  

If people were so concerned about privacy and security, wouldn't they take the time to understand what that privacy and security entails?  Kinda seems some are more enamored with the idea and marketing of privacy and security than the actual thing, and they get upset when real reality doesn't dovetail with their version of reality.

Literally nothing has changed.  Apple has done nothing different.  The only thing different is some have more information than they had before.  Info that has always been available.

"iCloud secures your information by encrypting it when it's in transit, storing it in iCloud in an encrypted format, and using secure tokens for authentication. For certain sensitive information, Apple uses end-to-end encryption. This means that only you can access your information, and only on devices where you’re signed into iCloud. No one else, not even Apple, can access end-to-end encrypted information."

• https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

What part of those terms and the URL I link to which clearly states that all encryption is at least 128-AES is, as you put it, "iCloud backups have never been encrypted"?

I guess I'm not as smart as you because when Apple trumpeted how much they care about privacy and issued security overviews listing all the ways that my data being sent to iCloud was so secure that even they couldn't access it, I believed them. It's good to know that you believe that the keys generated per device for iMessage is complete BS and that my message history is easily readable by Apple at any time without any effort.

As I understand it iMessage is end to end, but as always icloud backups are not. So if you back up to icloud every nite the FBI or whoever can subpoena that. It has always been this way and is common knowledge. Device secure from the government, backups are not. This has been talked about a million times, like after the San Bernardino shooter case and how they complied with icloud backup subpoenas. Nothing new. 

Apologies for the question, but right now I'm confused af.  
I don't have an iCloud backup, relying on a Mac backup.  If I have iMessages in iCloud on (and assuming the person I was messaging does the same) does that mean these iMessages are able to be subpoenaed by some kind of state actor? Or not?