[0xBeefFed]

I appreciate you looking at the other side. To explain my view point, in this system it seems like all of the risk is put on the infected party who reports themselves. By decreasing the level of control they have, I believe you will see a decrease in the number of adoptions. It is valid to think about the non-infected user wanting to have this information, but today they don't even have this information so to even know they were exposed on their commute is above and beyond what is in place today.

I guess my original comment is a bit vague. When I look at these protocols I am interested in how large scale adversaries (Nation State) would use this technology, but also small scale adversaries (day-to-day person you are not friendly with). I think its also important to note as others have, that being outed as having the virus does put people at risk of violence in some places.

[closeparen]

Telling people when they've been exposed is not a kindness we might extend from the goodness of our hearts when convenient. It's something we must get right, every time, or the conditions that require lockdown today persist until vaccination. We cannot afford people out and about making untraceable contacts three weeks for now, any more than we could three weeks ago.

Every person is a danger to society until this is over. Release is out of the question. The choices here are continued incarceration, or parole.

I can sort of imagine a libertarian solution here, with truth in labeling: as long as I can tell before I get within six feet of you whether you share a connected component with any conscientious objectors, then I can make my own decision about risk. But I cannot imagine that many public places would permit entry to such people.