Note: All opinions (in this comment and all of mine on HN) are my own.
Note: All opinions (in this comment and all of mine on HN) are my own.
Defining "essentially the same" sounds hard, especially if a series of "small" changes happen over a period of time. Ship of Theseus, anyone?
As soon as you try defining "small changes" and the period of time on which they can occur, it is arguably a problem that will lead to loopholes easily abused by the legal departments of any big corp.
That's the problem being discussed--the fond relationships are built with entities that no longer exist, and it is argued that current brand practices are deceiving for the consumer side of the relationship and abusive on the producer side.
I am merely saying that if it is possible at a national level, it is possible at a company level. If it is a culture where you work you can quickly become swept along with it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard suggests otherwise.
People can't keep crazy conspiracies secret very well, but are completely capable of keeping eroding standards quiet.
that's wildly wrong hypothesis. the complete opposite of these ideas are uncontested knowledge in academia, and in popular culture as well.
see Hannah Arendt's work. (which doesn't even include profit and personal gains!)
If Apple relied on private info for revenue, the warm smile would be the same but the wording would be very different.
Still, the problem is more along the axis of technology. Even if Apple open-sourced their entire stack, we'd still have to take their word for what was running on our phones at any given moment. Encryption protects us but also ensures we can't know what information is sent from our phones to Apple. Hardware security, which protects us as well, turns our phones into a black box.
Are Apple good guys? Well, we could have a whistleblower come forward with evidence that they're not but a lack of whistleblowers isn't evidence that they are. If the entire stack isn't auditable by 3rd parties then we're just going on faith.
Personally, I'm ok with it. I like the aesthetics of Apple products more than their rivals. The threat to me, if it exists, isn't large enough for me to worry about.
If I were a criminal, I wouldn't trust my iPhone for a second.
It is, actually. It reduces the number of possible worlds in which Apple is an evil company, while leaving intact the number of possible worlds in which it is saintly.
It's only weak evidence, to be sure.
I couldn't agree more. But at the same time, I'm completely baffled that while this sentiment about companies is widely agreed upon on HN, people around here don't expand this from companies to much more powerful and dangerous orgs: governments.
Well put. Corporations aren’t people no matter what Citizens United “says.” Their goal is maximizing shareholder profit at any cost. They do nothing out of the goodness of the hearts they don’t have and they certainly are not guided by ethics the way individuals are.
As you said, if Apple “cares” about privacy more than Google or Facebook it is not because it is a more “moral” or “just” company, it is simply because its business model is not, and never was, based on hoovering up and monetizing personal data.
It’s not like a conscious decision was made by Tim Cook or Apple’s shareholders to do things differently than the aforementioned two companies.
Pointing out how Apple “cares about your privacy” is simply a PR (read: propaganda) move designed to gain some extra positive publicity which, of course, helps the bottom line. It’s the kind of thing companies do all the time. Taking these pronouncements at face value requires a certain naïveté (or a wilful suspension of disbelief).
And while Apple might not traffic in its customers’ personal data, the company recently revealed that it scans content stored on its servers, e.g. your iCloud Photo Library, because of “concerns” over child pornography.
This suggests privacy isn’t quite as sacred to Apple as its PR department would have one believe.
(Never mind that there is no evidence whatsoever that mass surveillance reduces incidence of child sexual abuse or decreases the production and distribution of child porn. Which begs the question, why <i>is</i> Apple spying on its paying customers’ personal content?)
Whenever a company, or a government, deploys the cliché “think about the children!” argument as a pretext for increasing internet surveillance, you can bet this reason was chosen because if anyone objects on privacy grounds they can say, “what, so you’re on the side of the child pornographers/suicide trolls/cyber bullies?” It’s a discussion stopping tactic.
Yeah, corporations are definitely not people, they are not your friends and they do not care about you as a person. That in 2020 this even needs to be said is a testament to how thoroughly corporate propaganda has been woven into the fabric of western culture.
https://apple.com/privacy (45 second read)
https://apple.com/privacy/features (many minute read with links to whitepapers)
I believe this goes well beyond following instinct, and at least for me does lead to a strong semblance of trust.
They really did a doozy by not being upfront about Siri's contractors (I already knew so it didn't affect me personally), and they're hemming on E2E iCloud backups (perhaps for Availability, perhaps for China), but they continue to push the envelope on what usable security and usable privacy looks like.
In addition; the iPhone 5s from 2013 is still getting security patches, as recently as March 24th.
I'd go the reverse. The bigger they are, the more I trust them.
> I wish people would stop anthropomorphizing companies that way.
But anybody who trusts them for that reason is indeed crazy.
Maybe out definition of trust is different. For me trust means predictability. Do I trust the sun will rise in the east or a stone will roll down the hill? Do I trust my mother will tell me off if I growl at my sister? Do I trust my father will ask me how the finances are going? These things are all predictable - so I trust them. To a lesser extent do I trust these people to keep their word? The answer is sometimes - if my mother promises to look after the kids then definitely, but if she promises not to buy them presents then I'll trust her a little less.
Companies are also predictable in some ways. Bigger companies more so than smaller ones, simply because it takes a lot longer to change the direction of a bigger ship. In my book predictable means trustworthy.
One of the things you can absolutely have faith in is a bigger company is driven by money. (A small company is more likely to be driven by idealism of its owners.) Money means users, so if a good record on privacy attracts users you can be pretty sure they will do their best to have a good record. Not surprisingly Apple and Google do have an extraordinarily good record on keeping data they store secure - far better than most governments for example.
It does not surprise me at all both companies are making a song and dance about how they are safeguarding your location data, and I trust them to do everything within their power to make good on that promise. Unfortunately they aren't gods - if they receive a court order to cough it up, they will. So trust has limits.
that is just silly.
> bigger company is driven by money
Follow that money. Figure out who pays. Are you the customer?
Actually, with the exception of people working on standards committees, I think your comment may be the first time I've ever seen an Apple employee openly comment in a public forum.
Most of the open-source contributors in my projects that get hit by a bus, get hit by an Apple's bus (they start working at Apple, and cannot say anything publicly anymore or contribute to any project).
In other words, you trust Facebook, Google, NSA, and Congress more than Apple?
Seems like an odd standard.
That is: I'm not saying a company is trustworthy if-and-only-if its employees speak publicly. I'm saying that my mental model of what a company would or wouldn't do internally is strongly influenced by what I know about its employees.
The only way to fix that would be to use this new API on iOS.
"The Government will work with Google and Apple to investigate whether the new functionality announced by Google and Apple partnership is beneficial for the app performance"
According to the Australian COVIDSafe app's privacy policy, when you register for the app, after you successfully enter a PIN sent by SMS, it transmits the following info to the Australian authorities: your mobile phone number, the name you enter, the age range you enter, the postcode you enter. The reasons for each are explained in the policy. This data is stored in the cloud. I don't see why the registration info (I'm just talking about the registration info, not the Blutooth-related data) can't simply be entered later, or stored locally on the device and not uploaded until, when and if, the user volunteers to share their registration info with health authorities, e.g. as a result of being notified that someone that was near them has tested positive for COVID-19. If this info wasn't transmitted as part of setting up the app, I expect the uptake of the Australian COVIDSafe app would be significantly higher.
I am also still waiting for Australia to publish the source code for their COVIDSafe app...
A lot of voices have spoken out about this issue overseas (particularly in the US) while many local tech voices have skipped considering this at all.
See:
* Previous FTC CTO / Obama Whitehouse senior adviser: https://twitter.com/ashk4n/status/1248659875669798912
* Brookings Institute article: https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/inaccurate-and-insecure...
* Margolis Center for Health Policy at Duke University (pdf report): https://healthpolicy.duke.edu/sites/default/files/atoms/file...
* Bruce Schneier: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/05/me_on_covad-1...
A determination around being a close contact results in 14-day isolation regardless of symptoms, presumably because you may initially test negative before moving into an infectious and asymptomatic or symptomatic phase.
https://blog.gds-gov.tech/automated-contact-tracing-is-not-a...
One recent data point using the CovidSafe app is here: https://twitter.com/jim_mussared/status/1256199078314078210
Exploration around the defects in that app is ongoing here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u5a5ersKBH6eG362atALrzuX...
When you consider that close contacts include anyone you've spent more than 2 hours with in a room, it becomes clear that most life situations are not handled by estimates of proximity using bluetooth: home, family & friend visits, workplaces.
You can find a deep-dive into these issues here:
https://blog.crushthecurve.today/why-should-you-install-the-...
From what I recall, the US was/is spying on the major tech companies and would regularly demand data and place gag orders on those companies.
Neither actions are willful forms of data transfer. The first is actually an eternal game of cat and mouse. NSA finds a leak for some data, Google fixes it, new leak, etc. The second is targeted handover of data, and only affects a few individuals.
Equating these with the US government having full access to everyone's data is misleading. If you think otherwise, please provide more detail.
So you agree.
> Neither actions are willful forms of data transfer.
What’s that got to do with it?
> Equating these with the US government having full access to everyone's data is misleading.
If the data exists, the only prudent approach is to assume state-level actors, at least, can get access to it.
Even nation state actors will have a harder time gathering data that only exists locally on a bunch of smartphones, separate from geolocation as proposed here, versus a centralised database lacking comprehensive oversight.
The rest is pretty irrelevant, we're talking about data collection using phones that already have an OS from both of these vendors. "But Snowden" is really no argument anybody in these discussions will listen to (and I'm not convinced they should if it's used in a way to imply that you shouldn't use the internet for anything). If you have a problem with data collection for contact tracing please be specific why and optimally provide what you feel would be a better alternative.
By everyone you mean "US citizens" because from my understanding non-US citizens are fair game and it it legal to spy on them.
Google has effectively been using Bluetooth scanning and contact tracing (of sorts) as part of their location tracking feature... Now they're turning around and saying they won't track location from Bluetooth scanning? Seems like a BS PR move.
Google lets you do a lot more privacy violation on Android, but Apple has been building their brand around privacy and wouldn’t participate in that.
It's not correct that the US govt has root access to all systems and data.
The only (in)tangible difference between 2005 and today is the presumed existence of national security letters and other warrants that compel these companies to provide access.
If this was exposed once it’s happening elsewhere.
There was also the case of the NIST elliptic curve encryption best practices being subverted for NSA backdoors standard.
They’ve got a job to do. They’re doing it. But worth noting that a vendor could claim be pro privacy while also cooperating with their government.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/18/tech/israel-coronavirus-techn...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-tech-company-says-it-c...
Don't be naïve. This is not an NGO or an institution. They are doing this so that they and noone else owns the data.
Even if this "do your research" level talking point would be true, they don't own the data in this proposal, the end user device does. The device you trust and use anyway, the device that has your geolocation and access to far more data Gapple could abuse at all times. Which is better than what the COVIDsafe/NHSX/ROBERT put forward for the specific topic of digital contact tracing.
They have a long way to go in my case but every journey starts with a single step, and this seems like the twelfth or so step from Googles side towards becoming trustworthy (but they still have a long way to go!)
I think one shouldn't underestimate the business value of actually being a trustworthy vendor/business partner/SaaS company and while there are a few contenders that niche isn't too crowded for now :-)
This is why you want an API that never uses any data you don't want anyone else to have. That's what this API is.
The "trust" here isn't about whether they'll keep your data safe from third parties including state level actors. Your "trust" only needs to be that the API does what it says on the tin.
Which leads to this conclusion: either you A) trust this API to be what it says: something that doesn't ever deal with any sensitive data. Basically an exchange of random numbers.
Or B) you think that there is something nefarious here and the API might associate who you are or where you are, and store or distribute that data.
If it's A) then you should be fine. If you think B) then you shouldn't use a phone from Apple or Google. Because as far as you are aware, they share your location and personal information.
As far as integrity goes, I can't see a situation where you would both accept running an iOS or Android phone but at the same time avoid apps with this API out of privacy concerns!
Because you have another choice...
The other side is trusting the government to keep it's promises. During this covid-19 crisis I do trust them, but in the longer term their record of keeping promises has been less than stellar. Frankly, keeping this app or any app of theirs installed over a few years on the basis them promising not to missuse the data is downright foolish given their past history. Such promises tend to become null and void at the next election.
But right now we have no choice - it's either take them at their word, or don't install the app. Yes, we can do what the gang of four above have done and de-compile it, but that takes a huge amount of effort that has to be repeated every new release. That effort isn't going to continue. If it doesn't continue the light doesn't continue to shine on it's technical deficiencies, and so they won't be fixed.
But - that can change with a few simple and cheap changes to the way the government does things. All they have to do is release the source to a public repository before they release the binary and have a reproducible build. Do that lots of things become much easier. Checking what the commented source does as opposed decompiled output is much easier, checking just the differences in source between one version and the next is much, much easier than checking the entire thing, using reproducible build to allow you to check the source rather than decompiled output is very much easier. Do that, and the light on the technical deficiencies will stay on forever.
Implementing those inexpensive and straightforward things has anther wonderful emergent properties aside from the technical deficiencies being fixed: you suddenly don't have to trust the government, you can trust the code instead.
But no one seems to focus on changes to the overall process. Instead it's essentially nit picking on how the app does things today. It's an unfortunate focus.
Honestly what is with this attitude? Yeah, I get it.. you took a business class and learned that everything a company does should be to maximize shareholder value.
But welcome to the real world. Sure the company wants to make money, but they also want to provide a valuable service. Yeah sometimes making money gets in the way with the best product they could offer.
But it's people making the decisions of what to make. It's people who use the software (let's say osx/ios) that want to make it better. It's developers who sit there are think how can they improve this feature so it's great for people.
If the government doesnt misuse your data, Apple will, by proxy, buy training there AIs on your datas. Sure the AIs will start out "for the purpose of good" but at some point they will be leveraged for the "purpose of profit".
and its much easier to make something fail than it is to succeed, which is why voting for (and keeping) the right people is so importamt
I have worked with people who "designed" terrible systems or couldn't see that a system would never work, yet still attempted to operate it. It was like they were unaware of the dysfunctional state of it, yet it had to exist because their job was to "design".
I believe your claim is false.
That would be true even if Apple suddenly decided "oh these folks on HN want to see the code for that tracing component, better open source our complete OS". I've seen assurances that parts of this will be open sourced as far as they can but I honestly don't see how that matters. You have, as is a general tradition, a description of what this system does cryptographically. The rest is a matter of reverse engineering that hardly benefits from having the code. It's not like Play store updates or whatever Apple uses to push this are reproducible builds the end user can verify. And you always have the closed source blob of whatever BTLE chipset your device uses which you can mistrust.
edit: Let me qualify "but I honestly don't see how that matters" for the question of trust in what runs on your phone here. If you read a dig at OSS into this you're generalizing far over what I'm addressing here.
I have compiled some of the apps on my phone myself so I know that the result does in fact come from the same source code. That may not work in the case of iOS devices, though.
> And you always have the closed source blob of whatever BTLE chipset your device uses which you can mistrust.
That is a good point and it'd be great if that chipset could also be open sourced but one step at a time.
> That would be true even if Apple suddenly decided "oh these folks on HN want to see the code for that tracing component, better open source our complete OS".
You are correct if it was simply open sourcing the OS. If it was possible to compile and install the OS ourselves, that would completely change the game.
Instead, they form an opinion based on generic distrust for apple and Google, just like no-vax people do it out of generic mistrust for institutions and big pharma.
The distrust _is_ justified, and we should be wary. What is not justified is dismissing the CTF based only on that, imo.
You don't work for the kind of employer that values someone sticking their head out and saying ... anything. They want to control the message, and saying anything may be worse for both you, and for Apple, than saying nothing.
Just be careful. Apple's got the people to manage this PR situation.
That comment seems completely neutral. Not being able to post that comment without worrying about consequences sounds absolutely dystopian.
I wish people really tried to understand rather than just give knee-jerk negative responses to go along with their existing world view.
A lot of people are trying to do the right thing and working hard to do good. The cynical HN default response just feels like a lazy way to try and signal intelligence.
Apple and Google may have good intentions. But if there is one thing clear from history is that if anything can be abused it will be. Maybe not now but it certainly will eventually.
Most of the comments are empty of any actual content from people who haven’t even tried to read about the protocol they’re working on.
The protocol is designed by people aware and concerned about these risks (which is why the way it works is pretty interesting).
A lot of interesting work happens in the challenging areas where it’s critical to get things right, there are real risks, and the answers aren’t obvious. Engaging in those areas where things are complex is important.
It's easy to just remove yourself from the problem, say something can't be trusted, and then feel good about your moral purity, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. It does, and there is real value in putting work in to solve it.
If you care about these issues then you're the type of person that should be involved in solving it exactly because you're concerned about the risks.
Jeff Hammerbacher's quote from working at Facebook reminds me of this, “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads,” he says. “That sucks.” I think he's right, and working on these bigger non-ad software problems is where the effort should be, because they are hard, and because the outcome is important.
The governments of the west need to be capable, but still protect the privacy of their people - that isn't an easy problem.
You're right, it's a hard problem. And until these companies or institutions can prove that they are doing this, why should we trust them?
>who haven’t even tried to read about the protocol they’re working on.
The companies will collect and store the tracking data, and the government will, one way or another, have access to it. What is so difficult to understand about that?
"It will only be used for good" is laughably naive, as history had demonstrated repeatedly.
>If you care about these issues then you're the type of person that should be involved in solving it
Protesting and making your opinions known is way to help solve the problem.
It's difficult to understand because it's false (and this statement shows you haven't tried to understand the solution they are proposing): The data doesn't leave the phone without the user's consent, the consent is only asked for if the user contracts the disease, and the data uploaded when consent is given is only useful to those who have been in the vicinity of that user: the companies developing the system and the government do not get a list of users and their contacts (they get no data at all from anyone who does not consent, and they still don't get contact data from those who do).
The only issue of trust is whether the implementation on the phones matches their statements: but this is already a general problem with phones in general: if you are trusting them to run the OS you are already trusting they will not exfiltrate this and more data. I see no actual expansion in their powers through adopting this approach, and I see them making every effort to protect privacy while achieving the requirements, which is in stark constract to government approaches.
> Protesting and making your opinions known is way to help solve the problem.
Not when the protesting and opinions are based on a false understanding that comes from motivated reasoning, knee-jerk negative responses, and not trying to understand the issue deeply.
Then it’s just noise that confuses the issue and makes things worse.
Most of the time it’s not helping to solve the real problem anyway. It just makes people feel good about themselves without actually engaging in the work.
This is not an accident. A great deal of work has gone into destroying public trust and the capacity of institutions to make impartial decisions based on data. Partly from the profit motive, partly for destructive political purposes. And a lot of people in the tech industry and on here actively support the right to destroy that work by posting the most thoroughly debunked and dangerous lies on popular tech platforms - again for their own ideological purposes.
Given past track record of both companies, this is the only way I would ever have of not being skeptical.
The spec seems pretty clear - it's not possible. If you feel that you don't trust them to implement the spec correctly due to incompetence or malice on their part - you need to supply the proof. If we're relying on your gut feel to be skeptical, you just look like an anti-vaxxer saying "I don't trust Big Pharma's vaccines based on my gut feel."
Even against their will, companies with capabilities can and have been compelled by government agencies to go against their promises and lie about it.
Additionally, with organizations of this size, it's very plausible that the vast majority of employees and even executives are blissfully unaware of wrongdoings, abuse and involvement in conspiracy by individual employees or decision makers.
All it takes is a single compromised or malicious person to add new capabilities in an update to an already rolled-out and well-intentioned software. Possibly a handful if you add strongly enforced and audited mechanisms for co-signing releases and whatnot.
You're making vague, unsubstantiated claims about how this could be compromised. Even if there is a bug that allows such apps to collect location info, that has nothing to do with Snowden leaks.
If a government is keen on collecting such information, they would simply not use Google/Apple's APIs and instead roll their own using bluetooth and location services. This was pointed out in the article. Now could you explain to us why you're promoting a conspiracy theory that the government will lean on Apple and Google to introduce malicious bugs into their APIs when they don't need the APIs at all?
Still, there are multiple plausible ways in which these apps and systems can be compromised by malicious actors (from any nationality). The risks are significantly larger than they need to, to a large degree due to lack of transparency and verifiability, and significant trust elements.
These risks are not inherent in the design of the contact-tracing system or the specific companies themselves, but they are inherent in the way smartphone apps are typically developed and distributed to end-users on mainstream platforms today.
Then on top of that, past and ongoing incidents obliterates my personal confidence that large U.S. tech companies will live up to their promises.
I agree I'd trust Google over the government and many others. But the OP you are replying to called for releasing the source code, and reproducible builds. If you do that, you don't have to trust somebodies word or the laws of the land, you have the laws of mathematics in your court.
Surely you are not saying what is a clearly inferior solution is one we should be using.
Seeing Apples name on the PRISM slide was a gut bunch, you dont and will never get blind trust anymore.
Saying this is similar to the anti-vax movement is so frustrating for me to read when special closed courts are set up in my country to deliver verdicts on the legality of data acquisition and they STILL found the GCHQ overeached and illegally spied on citizens.
The UK gov has even decided to not use the API provided by Apple here so if I could trust Apple (which I don't) its being undermined by the fact the government decided to take Palantir on to help make it and it looks like they are getting involved in the US effort too.
iOS is full of dark patterns and a few absolutely awful restrictions that are very anti user. It shouldn’t be surprising that the users don’t trust Apple.
(Hopefully this doesn’t come across as disrespectful, I think the work you guys have done on contact tracing is awesome.)
In the case of privacy, the trust was broken by the institutions themselves (Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, US gov obviously as well). Public privacy was eroded as a result.
The New York Times is neither of those, yet many people would characterize it, alongside the Fourth Estate, as institutions. The term "institution" codes depth beyond legal form [1].
One should never unequivocally trust for-profit companies.
There are many parallels between them. Companies run on economic power, government run on political (and also economic and hard) power. Companies are kept at bay by market forces, government by democratic process. Both of them may work or fail (monopolies in market, different kinds of identity politics in democratic process). Both companies and government can do extraordinary good (when incentives are well aligned and leaders are competent) and extraordinary bad (when either is not true). Both can empower petty tyrants inside their hierarchies. The reasonable way is to keep both dependent on each other and to limit each to their own domain.
For me, the discrepancy between apple marketing around the products and how it feels being stuck in the past as soon as having to build and support anything related to apple makes the whole company not likeable and not trustworthy.
There are many reasons to challenge broad authoritarian policy. Don't pollute the dialog with anti-vaxers, that shuts down a completely legitimate conversation that should happen in a healthy society.
Accepting wide-spread social tracking unchallenged is worrisome. I should not have to explain to intelligent minds why. The paths you open up when you allow something like social compliance tracking and scoring are just terrifying. Way more terrifying for our children than the immediate health problems.
You frame that like society itself or the people that make up society are somehow at fault. Perhaps the issue is that elements of society like Apple have taken actions or have failed to take actions which would have engendered the sort of reaction that you would prefer to see.
If Apple wants my trust they need to earn it.
Why should I give Apple my trust again after being burned by them repeatedly?
Does Apple even trust me?
The main mistake is that you compare, emotionally at least, Apple to an institute. But it's not, it's a commercial company. "We" never had or should have had any trust in commercial companies - maybe besides small ones as someone else noted here.
The problem is that as a society we allowed a few commercial companies to become such an inherent part of our lives.
I understand and completely empathize with your concern. I do think this lack of trust is and is going to cause very serious problems. However, this mistrust has been earned.
The incentives of large companies seem to be odds with what many people consider good for themselves or their communities.
We like to tell ourselves that a company’s goals must align with a community’s concerns or another company will come along and replace them. But this doesn’t seem to happen in reality and if it does, it can take decades which by that time, the damage is already done. Particularly if the company is above a certain size or retain a certain percent of their market. At scale companies can and regularly do act almost antagonistic towards their customers and the communities in which they live.
During some college research I found an older article from years ago and while I’ve looked repeatedly, I haven’t been able to find it again (If anyone knows it, please please let me know.) I’m running off of memory here so forgive me for the weak description. The author had researched and discovered how most very large companies used to require that every move they made would place a very high value on how it would impact their local community first and then place a high value on how the decision would impact their wider customer’s communities. These considerations played a massive role in whether or not they would move forward with the idea. If I’m remembering correctly this was written into these massive companies bylaws. Their first concern wasn’t regarding profit, it was about community impacts, and then profit came later in the decision.
I think we’ve gotten too far away from this and it’s going to cause even more damage than we’ve already seen. We’re so far away from this ideal and now an awful lot of companies will first decide if they can get away with something and if it will cause quarterly growth, then it’s worth moving forward on with little thought into wider impacts. This change has led to little if any thought going into the community wide second and third order effects. The fallout means we’re now dealing with a drastic diminishing trust in companies.
I share your concerns because I don’t think large organizations are inherently untrustworthy, and I know many (if not most) people inside these organizations have higher ideals and many companies have the best of intentions, but I think their hands are tied by systemic problems and these problems are eroding at fundamental societal trust systems.
democracy is about individual freedoms and rights, not necessarily those of profit-seeking entities
btw I do own Apple shares so what about my rights not to have those expropriated.
If anti-monopoly offices were able to force Microsoft to offer competing browsers after OS installation, then they should force Apple and Google to offer competing App Stores, each with its own app policies.
But that is irrelevant.
1. Neither Google nor Apple deserve the trust this requires. Seriously!
2. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You are arguably pushing tons of resources which will directly harm all current and future human societies. It is not what this precedent will do for us during this epidemic, but afterwards. Also, normalizing tracking is not self fulfilling for Google and Apple, not at all...
Thanks for all you hard work?
Why do you assume we ever had that trust? Corporations and Government have never had personal data on such a scale before and we've never had such little control over this data. Especially with google, your expecting us to trust a spyware company.
> The anti-vax movement is a perfect example where the collective work of thousands of people over decades to save millions of lives just gets tossed aside because some celebrity 'feels' like there's a connection that isn't there, and in the process
Anti-vaxers have been around as long as vaccinations have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy#History
I'd say this trust has never existed, there was just an illusion that it was because we couldn't see into others bubbles so easily.
Good. That took almost 10 millenia of human development to achieve. Let's not regress.
The anti-vaxxers may be wrong, but boiling it down to a "celebrity's feels" seriously underestimates the movement, and likely adds to the reasons these people don't trust the institutions.
- Benjamin Franklin
You can understand the skepticism and yet equate the skeptical people to "anti-vax" movement? That's very sneaky of you.
And yes, I'm sure all the telecoms, hospitals, etc. also hand over our data. Adding one more, much more comprehensive data source to the pile doesn't help anything.
Convenience always wins.
Secondly, everyone that understands low powered radio wave signals and keeps abrest of covid-19 infection vectors can plainly see that any correlation between those two are going to be extremely weak at best, and extremely easy to game.
No vaxine with such poor results would be allowed on the market, let alone prescribed.
This is a bad case of tech utopist solutioning gone awry.