I agree. And that's just one example from the article that seems to play into what amounts to a vigorous pitch of various dark, yet still subjective, perceptions. We just don't know the future, and we have a LOT of really talented, creative people working on it right now, and most of those people work within not just one, but a variety of social frameworks that encourage or enforce ethically commendable behavior.

I also personally love it when authors / technologists / etc. put in the work to describe the tools needed to 1) put the problem into perspective and 2) create around it. Either bringing the _spirit_ forward if it's a difficult technology-arena problem, or bringing the _technology_ forward if it's a difficult social-arena problem.

You're right, my article does lean towards a potential dark future. You're also right that it is subjective; it is, by design, an opinion piece not an academic one.

The article also has sharing buttons to the "closed" web most likely providing some company with information. This automatically had me question the article.

Those sharing links don't go to any company, they simply integrate with platforms to facilitate sharing. It's one of the few tools available to disseminate. I find it odd that sharing links made you question the article. I would personally focus on the content of the article, not the ability to share content.

It might be odd but presentation does make a difference for me. Sharing buttons make me think this is content marketing of some kind.

The FAQ gives more info: https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/cu...

In short, it says users have to specifically enable the feature and can opt out at any time. Isn't that completely sufficient to eliminate it as a privacy issue?

If it was opt-out, I would certainly feel very differently.

I expect there's a rightful concern that once the capability is present, government coercion of its use will soon follow in the name of 'public safety'.

Bye bye smartphone! You were a shitty device anyway.

Thanks for sharing the spec, I'll give it a read.

I am curious how you believe it's misleading? In its simplest form, is that not how it's going to work in Phase I? User has to input their information, platform will do what it does, health organizations will consume some aspect of that data. It will then be used for notifications when in proximity of others?

In the link you shared, in the intro:

"Exposure Notification makes it possible to combat the spread of the coronavirus — the pathogen that causes COVID-19 — by alerting participants about possible exposure to someone they have recently been in contact with, who has subsequently been positively diagnosed as having the virus. The Exposure Notification Service is the vehicle for implementing exposure notification and uses the Bluetooth Low Energy wireless technology for proximity detection of nearby smartphones, and for the data exchange mechanism. "

The last sentence was "Building a web of social behavior information." Is that in essence what is happening? I am not saying that controls are not going to be implemented, and that data is not going to be protected. I am also not denying the social frameworks that another commentator alluded too.

I am, however, implying that regardless of what you find in documentation, I have been around technology long enough, and at the most senior levels of tech companies, to understand there is a difference between what you read and what a platform can, and can't, do.

Why is that misleading? Is it simplified for users to understand, sure, but dismissing it because it doesn't reference technical specs is a bit shortsighted.