Apple and Google Update Exposure Notification API, 20 U.S. States Expected to Release Apps Soon

[sgeiger]

Nowhere does this article bother explaining that the API updates need to be rolled out as part of OS updates -- A lot of people reading this will probably assume the updates are already "live". Until the next iOS point release (hopefully) and Android release, nothing changes.

 

[AustinIllini]

There is no U.S. app, literally the U.S. Federal Govt punted on this (along with virtually everything else so "its not someone's fault"). It's up to the governors and only 3 states I think said they'd use it (as far as I know nobody has one out - out of the 3 states). It's rather tragic but virtually nobody in the U.S. will be able to use this.

"But we're testing more"

 

[cmaier]

"But we're testing more"

Honestly, if it’s taking a week just to get results in the U.S., then this sort of app won’t be very useful anyway. By the time somebody gets tested, gets their results, and the positive result gets into the system, anybody who had been in contact with the positive test patient will already have themselves potentially exposed hundreds of people.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Please go READ THE SPEC and then explain exactly what path there is for abuse of the information that it actually collects - not what you are guessing it collects.

I hear a lot of people here making wild accusations about what this system will do when they have no ****ing clue how it actually works. If you’re going to make accusations and berate anyone who feels this design has merit, then explain how the information this is actually collecting can be misused.

I have absolutely ZERO trust in Google. I don't care one bit about what their spec sheet says, their historical track record speaks volumes about their absolute abuse of data.

If you want to sign up your health records into the trusting hands of Google, be my guest. Plenty of people seem to be easily throwing away all sorts of common sense this year, just for that shred of perceived "safety."

 

[centauratlas]

Why does government even need to be involved? Just put the app out there from Apple and google and let people use it.
Why people insist on requiring the government to do it is beyond me.

 

[cmaier]

If you want to sign up your health records into the trusting hands of Google, be my guest. Plenty of people seem to be easily throwing away all sorts of common sense this year, just for that shred of perceived "safety."

Google has no access to your health records with this system. Nor does Apple. No health records are sent to anyone. Several of the apps are open source - anybody can see what they do.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

What makes you think that? You have no reason either to believe that isn‘t working.

Of course, just because the app registers contacts (btw in numbers that actually correspond to how much You have been mingling with others) doesn’t mean that the actual notification of positive ‘contacts’ is working. But at least some of the apps are open-source, if the app itself wouldn’t be working we would have heard about it by now. Ditto for the whole system, if it were technically disfunctional, we would have reports about it by now.

Exactly. It's a proof of concept. Nothing more.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

E.g. by reading the theoretical basis in papers, the technical specifications and by checking the open source code for some of the implementations.

There are good reason for thinking it works for those who take the time and effort of properly informing themselves.

There is no reason to think that. You have to actually use it correctly for it to make any difference. Do you have concept the amount of correct data that needs to be inputted for the results to be accurate and it all completely fails if it doesn't represent 100% of people around you.

Pointless.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

Funny, that was the same reaction I had to your ignorant post...

How clever. About as clever as using contact tracing with 2% of people to provide useful info about contact with 100% of people.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

What makes me think it’s working. Am because over 105 people have had alerts to being close contacts already. The government release the figures that the app creates. So that’s how I know it’s working. The level of cynicism And distrust about all this is staggering - I would imagine your American? Or else think the government is spying on you? You probably don’t wear a face mask to protect OTHERS around you either am I right?
But hey, you won’t use an app made by Apple but you probably have an iPhone with location services on - this collects infinitely more information on you then this app ever would or could! What’s the point of making a comment like this. It’s helping people know if they’ve been in contact with an infected person it’s help in the fight against this horrible disease that’s killing thousands of people, get a life.

Good grief.

Good luck explaining how something that is used by 2% of the population helps inform those 2% about contact with 100%.

Your response will be "just because its not perfect doesn't make it useless".

Yes, it does. It really does. The entire purpose is to alert people to contact. If we can't measure the contact with the hundreds of people you've actually been in contact with, then it's worthless.

Like I said, it is a poof of concept. Great. Let me know when 100% of people are carrying around this app, with valid, accurate, data logged. Then we can begin to treat it like something that matters. Instead of elevating it to a position of worship it by no means deserves, and then using it as yet another attack on everyone who doesn't completely agree with you.

 

[manu chao]

Exactly. It's a proof of concept. Nothing more.

So, the concept has been proven. That means it works and everybody should install it to reap the most benefits.

 

[manu chao]

Like I said, it is a poof of concept. Great. Let me know what 100% of people are carrying around this app, with valid, accurate, data logged. Then we begin to treat it like something that matters. Instead of elevating to a position of worship it by no means deserves, and then using it as yet another attack on everyone who doesn't completely agree with you.

So we shouldn’t install it until 100% of the population has installed it? Great logic.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

So we shouldn’t install it until 100% of the population has installed it? Great logic.

Exactly the kind of response I predicted. Keep this circular logic going all you want. It still doesn't do anything until everyone is using it. And not just installed. Installed, with legitimate (non-fraudulent) data being entered. If anything this API and data is dangerous in its overwhelming potential for false information given the vanishingly small number of people using it.

 

[manu chao]

Why does government even need to be involved? Just put the app out there from Apple and google and let people use it.
Why people insist on requiring the government to do it is beyond me.

So, when I get a positive test I should just call Apple which will then call the lab to confirm it? And how would Apple know it can trust the lab?

Plus there is the issue that the server with the random IDs of people having tested positive currently is in government’s hands. Yes, every phone with a national app installed will download these as well but they won’t leave the phone and end up on Apple’s servers.

 

[manu chao]

Exactly the kind of response I predicted. Keep this circular logic going all you want. It still doesn't do anything until everyone is using it. And not just installed. Installed, with legitimate (non-fraudulent) data being entered. If anything this API and data is dangerous in its overwhelming potential for false information given the vanishingly small number of people using it.

a) There is no real potential for false information. You have not given any indication how false information could be entered into the system.
b) You still insist that it is useless because too few people have installed it. But if one were to take that as a reason to not install it, we will never get to a situation where enough people have installed it. How do we get to a place where enough people have it installed if not by recommending everybody to install it? You are the one who is caught in a catch 22 situation with your thinking.

 

[manu chao]

Honestly, if it’s taking a week just to get results in the U.S., then this sort of app won’t be very useful anyway. By the time somebody gets tested, gets their results, and the positive result gets into the system, anybody who had been in contact with the positive test patient will already have themselves potentially exposed hundreds of people.

Sometimes you must start running before you hit the ground. Get an app in place so that when testing catches up, the infrastructure is in place to send out useful exposure notifications.

 

[cmaier]

Sometimes you must start running before you hit the ground. Get an app in place so that when testing catches up, the infrastructure is in place to send out useful exposure notifications.

i don't disagree that it would be great to get the app going. I just wish we'd get everything else going too.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

a) There is no real potential for false information. You have not given any indication how false information could be entered into the system.

WHAT are you talking about? If you use the app, and the app says, "You're Good!" and you're not aware that it is complete nonsense because it is taking into account maybe 2% of the people you've actually interacted with...how is that "no real potential for false information"? It is literal false information, and potentially dangerous.

What stake do you have in proving that this utterly worthless system has value in its present state? You're just making yourself look ridiculous by refusing to acknowledge it.

b) You still insist that it is useless because too few people have installed it. But if one were to take that as a reason to not install it, we will never get to a situation where enough people have installed it. How do we get to a place where enough people have it installed if not by recommending everybody to install it? You are the one who is caught in a catch 22 situation with your thinking.

How indeed? That has no bearing on the reality of the problem, whatsoever. What you have not yet considered, because you refuse to consider it or it just has not occurred to you, is that despite this thing being a good idea in theory, it is impossible for it to be effective or useful in the real world. It can only be useful at 100% adoption and accurate usage, and it can only be potentially dangerous at anything less.

 

[C DM]

WHAT are you talking about? If you use the app, and the app says, "You're Good!" and you're not aware that it is complete nonsense because it is taking into account maybe 2% of the people you've actually interacted with...how is that "no real potential for false information"? It is literal false information, and potentially dangerous.

What stake do you have in proving that this utterly worthless system has value in its present state? You're just making yourself look ridiculous by refusing to acknowledge it.



How indeed? That has no bearing on the reality of the problem, whatsoever. What you have not yet considered, because you refuse to consider it or it just has not occurred to you, is that despite this thing being a good idea in theory, it is impossible for it to be effective or useful in the real world. It can only be useful at 100% adoption and accurate usage, and it can only be potentially dangerous at anything less.

It can probably be misleading if it's treated as some sort of single source of absolute information -- more or less like many other things -- but not really if it's treated more realistically as it typically would be.

 

[compwiz1202]

So we shouldn’t install it until 100% of the population has installed it? Great logic.

This reminds me of the people who are like why should I send cards to people who don't send to me. By that logic, no one would ever send any. Someone had to be the first to break that chain.

 

[compwiz1202]

So we shouldn’t install it until 100% of the population has installed it? Great logic.

Yes you won't ever get 100% just for the fact people like my dad exist who won't switch from his dumbphone. And then the people who don't want a cell at all.

 

[manu chao]

WHAT are you talking about? If you use the app, and the app says, "You're Good!" and you're not aware that it is complete nonsense because it is taking into account maybe 2% of the people you've actually interacted with...how is that "no real potential for false information"? It is literal false information, and potentially dangerous.

Why would anybody ever think that the absence of an exposure notification (via this app) would mean that one wasn't exposed to the virus? That would be like thinking that after being out on the road: 'Nobody honked at me today, I must have followed all traffic rules perfectly'. Everybody knows that this app is just one puzzle piece that can help to quarantine (and potentially treat) some new infections (via prompting people to quarantine and get tested). Everybody knows that the app doesn't have 100% uptake, that infection is a stochastic process, that there will be many false positives and false negatives. It's like wearing reflective clothing as a pedestrian or cyclist, nobody would think that that saves them from being hit by a car. Everybody knows that if the app reports an encounter, one should take action and if it doesn't one should behave the same way as one did before installing the app. The app complements traditional contact tracing. Nobody thinks that if no official contact tracer has reached out to me today, I am at zero risk of having contracted the virus.

Everybody knows that they should always behave as if they were infected (without knowing it) and try to minimize the risk of infecting others (by wearing a mask, keeping a distance, avoiding unventilated interiors, avoiding crowds, etc.). The app reporting no known encounters doesn't change squat in that regard. Nobody would think that they don't have to wash their hands just because the app reports no known encounters. You wash your hands regardless.

What you have not yet considered, because you refuse to consider it or it just has not occurred to you, is that despite this thing being a good idea in theory, it is impossible for it to be effective or useful in the real world. It can only be useful at 100% adoption and accurate usage, and it can only be potentially dangerous at anything less.

Why would it be impossible to be useful? It is registering plenty of encounters every day. If just one of those encounters is reported as positive, the app will have generated a testing candidate. That is useful.

If 50% of all people have it installed than 50% of all receiving a positive test result can trigger exposure notifications, those will be useful only to the 50% that have installed the app, thus achieving 25% of the exposure notifications compared to a situation where 100% have the app installed. But for you apparently anything less than 100% success (in achieving the theoretical maximum potential) is not useful.

And you repeating the word 'dangerous' over and over doesn't make it so. You have provided zero explanation what could be dangerous with this app. The only thing dangerous here is you spreading lies about the app.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

Why would anybody ever think that the absence of an exposure notification (via this app) would mean that one wasn't exposed to the virus? That would be like thinking that after being out on the road: 'Nobody honked at me today, I must have followed all traffic rules perfectly'. Everybody knows that this app is just one puzzle piece that can help to quarantine (and potentially treat) some new infections (via prompting people to quarantine and get tested). Everybody knows that the app doesn't have 100% uptake, that infection is a stochastic process, that there will be many false positives and false negatives. It's like wearing reflective clothing as a pedestrian or cyclist, nobody would think that that saves them from being hit by a car. Everybody knows that if the app reports an encounter, one should take action and if it doesn't one should behave the same way as one did before installing the app. The app complements traditional contact tracing. Nobody thinks that if no official contact tracer has reached out to me today, I am at zero risk of having contracted the virus.

Everybody knows that they should always behave as if they were infected (without knowing it) and try to minimize the risk of infecting others (by wearing a mask, keeping a distance, avoiding unventilated interiors, avoiding crowds, etc.). The app reporting no known encounters doesn't change squat in that regard. Nobody would think that they don't have to wash their hands just because the app reports no known encounters. You wash your hands regardless.


Why would it be impossible to be useful? It is registering plenty of encounters every day. If just one of those encounters is reported as positive, the app will have generated a testing candidate. That is useful.

If 50% of all people have it installed than 50% of all receiving a positive test result can trigger exposure notifications, those will be useful only to the 50% that have installed the app, thus achieving 25% of the exposure notifications compared to a situation where 100% have the app installed. But for you apparently anything less than 100% success (in achieving the theoretical maximum potential) is not useful.

And you repeating the word 'dangerous' over and over doesn't make it so. You have provided zero explanation what could be dangerous with this app. The only thing dangerous here is you spreading lies about the app.

Ok, fine. You're going to continue this line of thinking where no matter what is brought up, you will find degrees of usefulness in something that is provably useless, and also somehow find it to be completely harmless and without consequence at the same time.

When you try this hard to avoid acknowledging reality, I start to tune out because nothing that anyone says will ever penetrate. You've made up your mind, and there is nothing anyone could say to make you even acknowledge that it might be severely flawed. You WANT it to be a good idea, so that's the end of it...that's all that's required.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

Honestly, if it’s taking a week just to get results in the U.S., then this sort of app won’t be very useful anyway. By the time somebody gets tested, gets their results, and the positive result gets into the system, anybody who had been in contact with the positive test patient will already have themselves potentially exposed hundreds of people.

Gee, I wonder if this common sense beat-you-over-the-head obvious logic is what has stopped entities from dumping money into rushing app development for something that will eventually not matter.

 

[bsolar]

There is no reason to think that. You have to actually use it correctly for it to make any difference. Do you have concept the amount of correct data that needs to be inputted for the results to be accurate and it all completely fails if it doesn't represent 100% of people around you.

Pointless.

Did you read anything of what I suggested?

"Using it correctly" is not exactly rocket science: install the app, open it, follow the ridiculously easy instructions, keep your smartphone with you and that's it. As long as others around you use the app too it can help identify potential contacts with infected people.

You don't need "100% of people around you": even a small percentage of the population having the app can bring benefits and help identify possible infections.

If you'd have bothered to inform yourself you'd know that: it's pretty clear you did not. E.g. that you can start seeing benefits with even a small percentage of the population using contact tracing you can learn by reading the original Oxford University study on the matter.