6 ms·
> Cryptographically signed to you. That's a bit of an oversimplification that makes this sound more concerning than it is. Not that it's 100% un-concerning, bu
by pdabbadabba 1mo ago
> Cryptographically signed to you.
That's a bit of an oversimplification that makes this sound more concerning than it is. Not that it's 100% un-concerning, but I suggest that anyone concerned about this read the linked docs. It really was designed to be quite privacy preserving, though it's obviously a difficult challenge in this context.
- hamhock666 1mo agoIsn’t this GPS data to see where Covid has spread? Even if your name is anonymous, a GPS point that every day goes to your work and then your home is surely you?
- wolletd 1mo agoMost probably, yes. But how would you know who I am and where I live? And if you do know both of those things, are there other ways of figuring out my routines? Yes, there are. Keeping the name out of that data does a lot for privacy. With a name in there, you could use the data to find my name and figure out my address. Without the name in there, you don't know which point I even am without knowing some of my locations from another source.
- shakna 1mo agoCorrelating data with another source is half of what data brokers do, so I wouldn't really say that is any level of privacy protection.
- neobrain 1mo agoWhere are you getting GPS from? Grandparent commenter talked about bluetooth beacons and parent suggested reading the docs. The contact tracing APIs very deliberately avoided GPS for exactly the reason you mention.
- felooboolooomba 1mo ago> Not that it's 100% un-concerning The face alone that if you spend 10 minutes within someone's proximity will get flagged is 100% concerning. Of course they keys will only be handed to government health officials, but we all know what that means.