[andor]

"Ask a computer scientist for their opinion and the answer is: FUCK NO!"

Of course, because all computer scientists share the same opinion... not!

Some computer scientists are even aware of the limits of their knowledge and understanding and give answers like "it depends". There are tons of variables that play into how well any of these solutions work, and yes, there's a privacy trade-off. Just like with license plates, card payments, mobile phones and leaving your house. Or using Linux. Are you one of the 10 people using Linux on the Internet? Yeah, we know who you are ;-) Welcome to the real world, where people make compromises.

Also: do you really want to be the guy saying something doesn't work while others are currently trying to make it work?

[LargoLasskhyfv]

You mean like really tamper proof electronic voting(in practice, under real world constraints of yadda yarr yarr yadda)?

[pinusc]

The comment above lists many solutions that require compromises to work.

We can make compromises on a covid-tracking app. Worst case scenario: fewer people install it and it's less effective—still better than not having it in the first place.

We can't make compromises on a voting system—worst case scenario: democracy is overthrown forever.

There is a BIG difference in the threat models here. The prople objecting to electronic voting recognize that a major breakthrough in computing security is needed before we get there. OTOH we van probably design a _reasonable_ covid app with acceptable compromises.

If you think that having your position tracker is unacceptable: great for you, stand up for your rights. Most people do have google maps and its tracking installed, and don't give a crap _because it lets them see traffic_. I think the tradeoff here is definitely better.