This could have been a nice little writeup of arguments in the decentralized tracing vs centralized location-based tracking approaches. But it is framed in the introduction as an argument in favor of manual tracing vs apps in general and fails massively to live up to that claim by focusing exclusively on the badness of central/location.
Centralized, geo-based apps have a million ways of failing at privacy and real life implementations will likely strike a few? Who would have guessed, that's why the proximity-only decentralized approach exists.
And those "most at risk students" who would be least likely to actively use a privacy-encroaching location tracker? They'll be invisible to manual contact tracing for exactly the same reasons. The situation of those people would make a very good example for how decentralized, proximity only apps can not only be better than location tracking but also play an important role stepping in where the manual approach has blind spots. But somehow it's used as an argument against apps in general.
> And those "most at risk students" who would be least likely to actively use a privacy-encroaching location tracker? They'll be invisible to manual contact tracing for exactly the same reasons.
It's Twitter. You were expecting a nuanced, carefully planned and well thought out essay?
This tweetstorm by Cory is one of the reasons why I keep trying to persuade people to get a blog (again) rather than rambling at length via tweets. A blog post demands at least a minimum of planning and upfront thought about what you want to say, as opposed to being a stream-of-conscious sequence of bite-sized quotes, hopefully connected. Now perhaps some people do plan their tweetstorms carefully, but the medium hardly encourages that or lends itself to a process of vetting, rewriting and editing.
Twitter has its uses. Long (for some value of 'long' here!) form writing is not that.
While I don't disagree in general, worth pointing out for anyone who hasn't used Twitter "threads" that you can now write all your threaded tweets before posting the first one - so it's not quite as bad as when you had to write a tweet, send, reply to it, send, repeat etc
Centralized, geo-based apps have a million ways of failing at privacy and real life implementations will likely strike a few? Who would have guessed, that's why the proximity-only decentralized approach exists.
And those "most at risk students" who would be least likely to actively use a privacy-encroaching location tracker? They'll be invisible to manual contact tracing for exactly the same reasons. The situation of those people would make a very good example for how decentralized, proximity only apps can not only be better than location tracking but also play an important role stepping in where the manual approach has blind spots. But somehow it's used as an argument against apps in general.