[Reelin]

I'm not sure if you intended that to be positive (ie tracing might be more complete in some cases) or negative (ie concerns about not wanting to reveal certain data). I'm going to go ahead and respond to the negative interpretation in case any future readers interpret it that way.

This is true, but I think a DP-3T like protocol (ex the Apple-Google spec) doesn't actually pose much risk here. The hypothetical drug dealer or other illicit contact can receive a notification that they were potentially exposed to someone that was infected, but in general no one else (a police officer, a spouse, etc) will be able to determine who was in contact with who.

In order to link someone to a particular location, you would need to observe their broadcast identifier while they were there and also link their diagnosis key back to them (this is likely to be quite difficult for most actors to accomplish).

In order to reveal a contact between two people, you would either need to do the above for both of them or to observe at least one of them at that location and time in some other manner.

[TechBro8615]

I’m sure the protocol is fully privacy preserving, now. But if we give an inch, the government will take a mile. This is about normalizing self-surveillance and isolating ourselves in response to notifications on our phone. Sure, the tech is privacy-preserving now. But who’s to say an emphasis will remain on privacy in future iterations of the technology?

Personally, I will not opt-in to this technology, and if forced to use it, I will leave my phone at home. It’s a small act of civil disobedience but it’s a necessary one IMO.

It’s alarming to me how so many in tech seem welcoming of, even excited for, this technology. I say this as someone who wrote my senior thesis on a subject related to privacy enhancing technology, so I’m familiar with the ideas.

[Reelin]

> It’s alarming to me how so many in tech seem welcoming of, even excited for, this technology.

It gets contact tracing right by accomplishing the goal while yielding almost no ground on privacy and remaining almost entirely offline. In an ideal world, all new technologies would be implemented in such a focused manner without regard for turning a profit.

I'm puzzled by your concern about normalization of self-surveillance; everyone I know has already voluntarily made drastic alterations to their behaviors due to current circumstances. I really don't see what introduction of this technology changes.

> who’s to say an emphasis will remain on privacy in future iterations of the technology?

If people don't object to widespread state surveillance later, would they have objected now? I don't see why a decentralized technology specifically built to prevent surveillance should lead to an increase in acceptance of it.