Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

we need to collectively take a step back and put this pandemic into proper perspective so we don't fall for privacy and liberty erosions like this. the panic is unproductive and dangerous to our civil rights.

for context, roughly 8000 people die per day in the US. the virus has killed 2 days worth of people in the US in the 80 days of known infection, and probably ~100 days of undiagnosed infection. so covid has killed 2% of the expected number of dead. it's serious, but it's not the black plague, or even the 1918 flu. and we're already seeing transmissions curb.

the virus overwhelmingly infects others in close and closed proximity with a lot of cross-breathing going on. random airborne infections or surface infections are likely small, certainly less than 10%, probably less than 1% of infections.

so, you don't need to social distance outside unless the other person is actively coughing/sneezing (or maybe singing/talking extra forcefully) in your direction within 6 feet. you don't need a mask unless you are in close proximity (less than 6 feet) to random other people for more than a couple minutes at a time. grocery clerks, and other service workers in close proximity to strangers, on the other hand, should wear non-n95 masks (but probably not gloves) during work. same with those who are often near folks with comorbidities like age, auto-immune disease, diabetes, etc. medical providers should wear n95 masks, gloves, gowns, and take many other precautions that make no sense for the general public. you are not lowering your risks in any percepitble way by doing so. allay your anxieties with those basics, rather than looking to buy more toilet paper. it's enough, really.

the overwhelmingly most effective way to prevent transmission is to not breath in a sick person's exhaust. that's it. that's all we need to do. and yes, we don't know everyone who's carrying the virus, so it makes sense to reasonably physically distance in enclosed places like grocery stores. but not more than that as you've already reduced risk to background noise with these basic distancing rules.

contact tracing only makes sense when groups of strangers come into close proximity. it doesn't need to track every single person you brush past on the street. so for instance, you could just provide "contact tracing" with beacons in stores rather than always-on phone tracing.

let's not lose our heads, and our rights, over this.




> contact tracing only makes sense when groups of strangers come into close proximity. it doesn't need to track every single person you brush past on the street. so for instance, you could just provide "contact tracing" with beacons in stores rather than always-on phone tracing.

The part of this comment that actually addresses contact tracing proposes a method (beacons in stores that would have to rely on fixed identifiers, known geolocation, and central storage) that would not only be worse for privacy than what is proposed here, it is also the likely outcome without employing a technique that at least considers privacy concerns.

The other paragraphs read like a compilation of Facebook-based science, where not simply factually incorrect, all points made are debatable and by no means as clear as you make it out to be.

This is a opt-in API and a technical protocol specification which we can discuss on technical grounds. Nothing proposed and discussed here even affects data leaving the end user device, or your rights for that manner, yet.


How can you know the names of the people with beacons in the stores


you don't need to know the names, just that two bluetooth-enabled devices were in close proximity in a given time window. you'd do all the processing on the device to maximize privacy.

each device would record beacons (which could be fixed, active bluetooth devices rather than just passive beacons) on entry and exit for relevant locations (like grocery stores). you'd tell your device when you got symptoms and give permission to upload the relevant location/time pairs (but no personal id) in the last N days to a research database (not hosted by google, amazon, ibm, and the like).

with user permission, other devices would subscribe to such data for a given region(s), which would be downloaded periodically to the device. the device wouldthen determins if you've had any crossings with known location/time pairs and alert the user.

no need to share extraneous personally identifying info with giant third-parties and potentially with (hidden) state actors. this cuts apple and google out of the data collection game, especially from making it part of the underlying OS, which is particularly dangerous.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: