News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google Apple Contact Tracing (GACT): a wolf in sheep’s cl... by pfortuny on Sunday April 19, 2020 @07:30AM (#22915108)
The author has absolutely no obligation to give an alternative, man. There is also LOSS of value in violations of privacy.

Also: as a mathematician, there is lots of value in a counterexample to part of a proof. Just that, even though the final result is true.

Re:Google Apple Contact Tracing (GACT): a wolf in sheep’s cl... by roca on Sunday April 19, 2020 @07:39AM (#22915160)
There's no obligation, it just means it's not a good article.
Re:Google Apple Contact Tracing (GACT): a wolf in sheep’s cl... by t-writescode on Sunday April 19, 2020 @01:31PM (#22917322)
> it just means it's not a good article.

Not necessarily. They included in the article that we could use decentralized contact tracing instead; and, an article arguing against a feature doesn't need an alternative.

If a refrigerator were being released with a microwave, do I really need to provide alternatives to where I could put the microwave instead?

Among other arguments, it argues that contact tracing is a source of mass surveillance. That alone, for the appropriate crowd, is enough reason to not use it. There doesn't need to be an alternative because the alternative is _not having it_.

Just because a bunch of developers ended up wasting their resources on a feature that is a net loss for society doesn't mean that the feature needs to be released.

Re:Google Apple Contact Tracing (GACT): a wolf in sheep’s cl... by roca on Sunday April 19, 2020 @04:04PM (#22918385)
> They included in the article that we could use decentralized contact tracing instead

GACT is decentralized. The article is arguing against decentralized contact tracing.

> a feature that is a net loss for society

The article doesn't even try to make that argument, which is why it is not very good.