> some people may erroneously assume that this story is relevant to bluetooth/cellphone contact tracing.
Is it any better if Google, Apple and the govt will be doing the stalking?
Is it any better if Google, Apple and the govt will be doing the stalking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_/_Apple_contact_tracing...
My brief understanding:
- No location data is used at all
- Devices get random rolling identifiers that are shared with other devices when in close range (ie contact is made)
- Devices keep a list of which identifiers they came in contact with in the past
- If someone tests positive, their recently used random identifiers are published, and any devices with those identifiers in their list notify the user that they may have been in contact with someone who has now tested positive.
If you can devise a non-magical way that a Google, Apple, or Subway employee could use that to personally stalk someone it would be quite an interesting whitepaper.
An in-location tracking system, such as numerous proposed retail monitoring systems, among othe.
Given time and location, a low number of hits would likely be sufficient.
This would be expensive, but likely within reason for a motivated entity. Possibly by utilising (with or without cooperation) existing infrastructure and systems.
Though yes, this shows the inherent risks of pervasive surveillance systems.
The objective is far less practicality or usefulness than of determining possible attacks on the anonymous contact tracing method. Also incidentally highlighting the power and threats of widely-distributed surveillance networks. Inference is powerful.
That said, they have to be right in front of you to stalk you, they can't do it from California.
I'm sure you have a link or two handy?
This is not useful for stalking.