Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
And since I've been asked the question a ridiculous number of times recently - there is no such thing as a robust privacy preserving contact tracing tool - at best it's going to be a tool that tells you to stay home unless the trip is essential.
There is no such thing as a robust privacy preserving contact tracing tool because social graphs and location graphs are impossible to anonymity because anonymity is fundamentally about removing social and location context - once you do that all that is left is the honour system
Just be responsible, limit in-person social interaction and question every single decision your government makes that isn't about funding housing, healthcare and sustenance.
Finally, given the brutal reality that any "decentralized" "privacy-preserving" contact tracing system is likely going to rely on everyone carrying around their non-private, centralized tracking devices anyway I have no idea what mythical adversary you are defending against.
When putting forward solutions you have to take into account the potential for false positives, false negatives, the vulnerability of the population most likely to be exposed by any weaknesses and the existing effective harm reduction measures.
Any parameterization is going to be fragile to changes in pattern of life and is going to differ depending on arbitrary things like population density, what supermarkets healthcare workers go to and what movement restrictions are in place.
So you're creating a situation where more people are able to attack a a system than if it was centrally managed, putting more vulnerable populations at risk, creating more noise that healthcare workers have process, and battling the fundamental limitations of location privacy
And, to put it out there, does any of this new data actually change personal or public health decisions? Will it make secondary epidemics less likely? Or can we skip it, socially isolate and when unable to, wear masks and limiting contact?
Which is to say, if contact tracing is an essential and potentially effective public health measure then I can't see how you gain anything by trying to decentralize it but I see so many ways you actively endanger more people - you have a trade-off to prove there.
What about an open source decentralized option? Sth. like those Bluetooth "which friends are near me" apps but better. First draft: every phone gets an ID, but it just beacons bloom filters of the hashes of IDs it was in contact with, and seperately one of known infections.
If you have an algorithm for robustly & privately updating a bloom filter you should publish it. The current tradeoffs require either exposing the ID (bad), expose the hash to multiple endpoints (just as bad) or allow anyone to update the bloom filter with any value (also bad)
For contact tracing, isn't the honours system enough? If I'm ill, I'd want people to be know they'd been exposed and avoid spreading it further. I just can't remember everyone I was next to in the shop.
What about the people who report falsely or don't report or who are asymptomatic and will never find out - there is no additional confidence being created - just more noise. Risk period is sustained contact (15-20 min) without a mask. It would be better to give everyone a mask.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
