
Bad Washington Post Story on Apple and Google's Exposure Notification Project - Reedx
https://daringfireball.net/2020/05/washington_post_exposure_notification_story
======
jtbayly
On the other hand, there is some evidence from an app already in widespread
use in Iceland that says it might be basically useless:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23204410](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23204410)

~~~
CathedralBorrow
To be fair, the app was released at the tail end of the infection curve so
there wasn't much pandemic to affect anymore. Could be useless, but I don't
think this was a good test to generalize with.

------
ec109685
There is spin in this analysis.

Apple and Google have a huge amount of power when it comes to what
capabilities they allow apps to use on their device. So when the article
mentions “sovereign power” and “unbending stance”, it is referring to that. It
is impossible for a user to run an app that collects tracing and location data
in the background given the restrictions the OS puts in place. This definitely
is better from a privacy standpoint, but it is these companies making the call
that it’s better for society.

Google and Apple are the ones that decide what data is collected and who it is
shared with. It is pretty remarkable how much faith we must have in them.

~~~
joshuamorton
> Google and Apple are the ones that decide what data is collected and who it
> is shared with. It is pretty remarkable how much faith we must have in them.

No, Google and Apple are one of a number of entities that have the ability to
put a maximum on the data shared. Governments are free to pass laws that limit
data collection and sharing (and some have!), and individual organizations are
free to limit their collection and sharing. To an extent, individuals are also
free to limit what data is collected about them, though I'll grant that this
is difficult for many users.

Do you really want to go the route of compelling Apple or Google to collect
data on behalf of a government?

------
an_opabinia
It’s intuitive that contact tracing APIs, as Google and Apple PMs have
conceived them, somehow help you. Some health officials have an opinion on
what kind of software would help them, saying something extremely well
publicized by Apple and Google will not. This conflict plays out with masks,
taking flights, not being able to smell as a diagnostic, and any number of
widely reported guidance that has some evidence, some intuition, tremendous
exposure in social and traditional media but no conclusive, registered control
trialed (RCT) results.

A line of logic that goes, “in the absence of conclusive evidence, play it
safe” doesn’t give you an answer for “track locations and surveil, to collect
more data and answer questions better, versus collect a minimal amount of data
in the interest of some other kind of safety called privacy.” There’s no
universal rationalist approach to your opinion here. You have to decide
whether to trust John Gruber or whatever health officials WashPo quoted.

RCT is a real line for people in medicine, at least for people who aren’t
looking to make a buck developing a drug. In the same way health officials
don’t strictly care if the stock market goes down, they wouldn’t strictly care
if Google and Apple’s brand would be impacted by detailed location tracking.
At the end of the day health officials, like the UCSF prof quoted here, just
want people to be safe and healthy.

The counterpoint is, what do Apple and Google want? To do something? The
appearance of doing something? They are not health organizations. John Gruber
isn’t a doctor. These are different perspectives and goals, not an argument
over how to achieve common goals. Why crank out and die on the hill of a giant
company’s PR team?

~~~
wskinner
> At the end of the day health officials, like the UCSF prof quoted here, just
> want people to be safe and healthy.

If only it were so simple. Publicizing private data is a one-way operation
that has longer term effects on safety and health, and we should certainly not
do it without a very strong reason to do so. Health officials will not be
accountable for the long term effects of their actions. Apple and Google will,
so they are somewhat more incentivized to act to protect their users' privacy.

------
valuearb
The misinformation has been extensive, even in this site where some supposed
technologists don’t even understand the privacy protections.

------
obarthelemy
The Daring Fireball guy is very hurt hat someone is criticizing his beloved
Apple, but there's at least a pinch of truth in the criticism: Apple and
Google feel they're not only entitled, but own, the data they have on us. That
they're not willing to share it even in a health emergency even with
democratic governments is iffy.

This should be at least user choice, if not decided at the ballot box.
Certainly not by shareholders. Especially since it seems the app in question
is, as a result, not very useful.

~~~
dahdum
The data isn’t stored by Apple or Google, it remains on the device. Users have
to decide whether to share their location history with the government or
health authorities. Instead of automatically pushed every few minutes as one
their sources insisted was necessary.

