Hacker News Reader

Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

>>how the contact tracing API can work while preserving privacy.

It cant, and any claims it can is sheer arrogance on the part of the developers.

you can not simultaneously assign an identifier to everyone, and maintain privacy, they are mutually exclusive. If you can ID someone, and trace that ID back then it is not private

View on HN

If you haven’t already, you should read the linked article. It does a great job explaining the features of the system in easy language.

Well good news: This system does not assign an identifier to everyone, so it works.

Private until someone flags someone or everyone as infected.

That is not a possible.

It absolutely does, and broadcasts it via BlueTooth, then other phones track which ID's you have been near.

The idea that can not be used for something other than COVID is moronic, this type of system has been done in Marketing for a long time, Google knows this very well.

This is not a new or novel idea, nor it is private

It does not transmit "an ID". It transmits random IDs, that cycle often.

Except for people that Test Positive, which then it uploads each of the Daily Tracing keys to a central server for each of the day you were positive, this is reversible, and has to be in order to identify all of the contacts the person came in contact with

you can not have an anonymous system that also provides aways to trace back to individuals you came in contact with

it is impossible

and their complex Hash of hashes is just a way to make it seems private for people that do not understand what is really going on, it sounds good on the surface, but that is all it is surface level

that is with out getting into the ways to compromise the device to get the original Tracking key that all of the other tracking keys are generated from

Yes, that is the tradeoff you are making to keep actual human beings from dying painfully.

You can afford to give up a few days of your privacy for that. Really, you can.

Really you are going to come back at me with a Privacy vs Safety fallacy.

If that is all the justification you have, you have already lost the debate. That kind of justification can be used for all manner of dystopian programs. Authoritarians have been limiting privacy and freedom for centuries on the basis of safety.

Right now in congress the EARNIT act is attempting to use that very argument for the "safety of children" we all need to give up E2E encryption

No I completely reject your premise that because of safety I need to give up my privacy

No, there is no fallacy. There really isn't. You privacy is NOT more important than a human life, which is exactly what is at stake here. Claiming otherwise is utterly sociopathic.

No it means I would rather die with privacy and liberty than to live in an Authoritarian Dystopia with no liberty or privacy

it is not sociopathic to put an extremely high value on privacy and liberty

No, it does not mean that. It means you would rather let OTHER people die with your privacy. You are literally valuing your privacy higher than the life of other people. And yes, that is sociopathic.

So do you draw any line on this, or should all privacy be void as long as it saves 1 life?

For example should I have my every moment monitored because I might hurt someone? Should everyone have to have a BAC monitor on their cars so save people from drunk driving?

Just trying to see if there is any limits in your Authoritarian world

Of course I draw lines. Any sane person draws lines. And the current situation is far, far beyond that line, as should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a functioning sense of empathy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com