Report Details How Apple and Google Developed Contact Tracing API

[jg666]

I think I must be the only person who thinks that an app could cause more problems than it solves...

All I can see is problems and situations where it just can't work, unless we all live in an ideal dream world where everyone owns a smart phone and everyone has that smart phone with them at all times. In this dream world, everyone who has had the virus has been to see a doctor or hospital and had it confirmed. In reality this just isn't the case.

I feel that if people have this app on their phones it could give them a false sense of security and they will get sloppy with their distancing and hygiene etc. If you put all your trust in the app then it will fail.

Problems I can see having thought about it for a few minutes include

1) Not everyone owns a smart phone. This is not just limited to elderly people, I know quite a few people who don't own a smart phone and some don't own a mobile at all. How are they going to stop these people from going out? Who is going to police this? I can't remember the last time I saw a policeman whilst out and about and certainly they aren't going to stop everyone on the streets to check to see if they have a mobile with them. Also I don't take my mobile phone with me every time I go out and I know many people who don't.

2) Even if people have a smart phone they aren't bound to have this 'wonder-app' installed. Even then, there are many people who have never turned on Bluetooth on their phones (I've never used it and I'm a techie developer).

3) I don't think that the positioning capabilities is accurate enough for this kind of task.

4) If data is exchanged by Bluetooth, this could happen between 2 people either side of a window and so even though they haven't been in contact it could give a positive contact result. Imagine several cars sat waiting at traffic lights and in this case there could potentially be several people all in close proximity but never in proper contact.

5) As I said before, I believe most people who have had the virus haven't been in touch with any medical advisors and have just done what the government has said to do - self isolate for and only if you aren't feeling better after a week get in touch with the medical advisors. None of these people would have been registered as having the virus so there may be lots of people walking around who they have spread it to before they isolated and none of them will show up as a positive on this app.

6) There are many very stupid people in this world and they will probably think that this app will stop them from getting this virus.

7) Person A who has tested positive at the hospital touched a surface a few minutes before person B did, but they didn't physically get within a couple of metres of each other. As far as I know, this won't trigger a positive and person B could have contracted the virus from the surface.

This is just a few minutes worth of thinking from me and is just a quick opinion

 

[Romeo_Nightfall]

It’s NOT anonymous Apple and google have. Our user I’d and serial!
This is the biggest hoax ever!
[automerge]1588149725[/automerge]

I think I must be the only person who thinks that an app could cause more problems than it solves...

All I can see is problems and situations where it just can't work, unless we all live in an ideal dream world where everyone owns a smart phone and everyone has that smart phone with them at all times. In this dream world, everyone who has had the virus has been to see a doctor or hospital and had it confirmed. In reality this just isn't the case.

I feel that if people have this app on their phones it could give them a false sense of security and they will get sloppy with their distancing and hygiene etc. If you put all your trust in the app then it will fail.

Problems I can see having thought about it for a few minutes include

1) Not everyone owns a smart phone. This is not just limited to elderly people, I know quite a few people who don't own a smart phone and some don't own a mobile at all. How are they going to stop these people from going out? Who is going to police this? I can't remember the last time I saw a policeman whilst out and about and certainly they aren't going to stop everyone on the streets to check to see if they have a mobile with them. Also I don't take my mobile phone with me every time I go out and I know many people who don't.

2) Even if people have a smart phone they aren't bound to have this 'wonder-app' installed. Even then, there are many people who have never turned on Bluetooth on their phones (I've never used it and I'm a techie developer).

3) I don't think that the positioning capabilities is accurate enough for this kind of task.

4) If data is exchanged by Bluetooth, this could happen between 2 people either side of a window and so even though they haven't been in contact it could give a positive contact result. Imagine several cars sat waiting at traffic lights and in this case there could potentially be several people all in close proximity but never in proper contact.

5) As I said before, I believe most people who have had the virus haven't been in touch with any medical advisors and have just done what the government has said to do - self isolate for and only if you aren't feeling better after a week get in touch with the medical advisors. None of these people would have been registered as having the virus so there may be lots of people walking around who they have spread it to before they isolated and none of them will show up as a positive on this app.

6) There are many very stupid people in this world and they will probably think that this app will stop them from getting this virus.

7) Person A who has tested positive at the hospital touched a surface a few minutes before person B did, but they didn't physically get within a couple of metres of each other. As far as I know, this won't trigger a positive and person B could have contracted the virus from the surface.

This is just a few minutes worth of thinking from me and is just a quick opinion

don’t be so constructive on this topic, in Austria they would lynch you, 🤣

 

[CarlJ]

I think I must be the only person who thinks that an app could cause more problems than it solves...

Most of the points you put forth don’t fit your premise of making things worse, they just point out potential inadequacies. Many of these are things they’ve likely taken into consideration. Keep in mind that, in order for this app to be hugely helpful, it doesn’t have to catch every single potential transmission, it just has to catch enough of them to drive the R number down below 1.0. If we can get to where each infected person, statistically, infects less than one other person, then the virus will eventually die off.

 

[glowplug]

I think I must be the only person who thinks that an app could cause more problems than it solves...

Nope. Testing and contact tracing at this scale is wildly impractical.

So what to do when there are 50 alerts on your phone saying you have been exposed to COVID-19?

 

[iGobbleoff]

And look at what’s happening here: https://www.innovationaus.com/questions-over-aws-tracing-deal-husic/

 

[jandieck]

I think I must be the only person who thinks that an app could cause more problems than it solves...

All I can see is problems and situations where it just can't work, unless we all live in an ideal dream world where everyone owns a smart phone and everyone has that smart phone with them at all times. In this dream world, everyone who has had the virus has been to see a doctor or hospital and had it confirmed. In reality this just isn't the case.

I feel that if people have this app on their phones it could give them a false sense of security and they will get sloppy with their distancing and hygiene etc. If you put all your trust in the app then it will fail.

Problems I can see having thought about it for a few minutes include

1) Not everyone owns a smart phone. This is not just limited to elderly people, I know quite a few people who don't own a smart phone and some don't own a mobile at all. How are they going to stop these people from going out? Who is going to police this? I can't remember the last time I saw a policeman whilst out and about and certainly they aren't going to stop everyone on the streets to check to see if they have a mobile with them. Also I don't take my mobile phone with me every time I go out and I know many people who don't.

2) Even if people have a smart phone they aren't bound to have this 'wonder-app' installed. Even then, there are many people who have never turned on Bluetooth on their phones (I've never used it and I'm a techie developer).

3) I don't think that the positioning capabilities is accurate enough for this kind of task.

4) If data is exchanged by Bluetooth, this could happen between 2 people either side of a window and so even though they haven't been in contact it could give a positive contact result. Imagine several cars sat waiting at traffic lights and in this case there could potentially be several people all in close proximity but never in proper contact.

5) As I said before, I believe most people who have had the virus haven't been in touch with any medical advisors and have just done what the government has said to do - self isolate for and only if you aren't feeling better after a week get in touch with the medical advisors. None of these people would have been registered as having the virus so there may be lots of people walking around who they have spread it to before they isolated and none of them will show up as a positive on this app.

6) There are many very stupid people in this world and they will probably think that this app will stop them from getting this virus.

7) Person A who has tested positive at the hospital touched a surface a few minutes before person B did, but they didn't physically get within a couple of metres of each other. As far as I know, this won't trigger a positive and person B could have contracted the virus from the surface.

This is just a few minutes worth of thinking from me and is just a quick opinion

Any problems you name are correct. But it is not an "all or nothing". The app will return both a percentage of false positive and false negative. But it will deliver the amount of potentially infected people much faster and, despite the problems mentioned, much more precisely than is possible without this app. Without this app, health authorities try to identify chains of infection by asking those who have tested positive for their contacts and then trying to contact the people identified in this way. How could a positive tested person name a person next to whom he was standing at the checkout in the supermarket?

 

[Chlloret]

Nope. Testing and contact tracing at this scale is wildly impractical.

So what to do when there are 50 alerts on your phone saying you have been exposed to COVID-19?

I think that would make you the source to have infected all those people? You should get a test asap. Remember, you get an alert when a previous contact tests positive, later. The people sending there positive are in Quarantine at that moment, out of circulation, the alert is for you to get tested.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

Anonymized data with user consent is the right way to do this. If you have Tik Tok installed on your phone, but you think this is "too much" you really need to re-evaluate where your trust lies.

Agreed both are really bad and I will never use either.
[automerge]1588161332[/automerge]

An Italian friend tells me you will need to have a COVID tracking app on your Mobile and carrying it in order to go out when they start to loosen the lock down.

Any one want to take bets on when the next stage starts -

- Compulsory to have a tracker chip inserted into the body
then
- Thought monitoring
- Thought control

Anyone thinking that´s crazy, what would you have said 4 months ago, if you were told that the world would be almost completely shut down (economically and physically), due to a new virus, with an unknown infection and death rate?

And what if you do not have a smartphone. I know lots of elderly people that do not use one. I will turn off my phone when going outside and turn it on only when I need it. This is wrong on so many levels.

 

[ericwn]

It’s NOT anonymous Apple and google have. Our user I’d and serial!
This is the biggest hoax ever!
[automerge]1588149725[/automerge]


don’t be so constructive on this topic, in Austria they would lynch you,

Where in the spec does it state that your serial is sent with the key. Please provide a link.

 

[ericwn]

No, this will NEVER be used nefariously by a police state.

Thanks for confirming this, especially since the API doesn’t belong to any one state and can be removed but both Apple and Google anytime.

 

[Williesleg]

Alice and Bob are racist and sexist names.
What about little kids names? Oh right.
African American names? Hmmm...similar problem.
Indian names? Well, they're writing the code, can't have that.
Old people names? Well, I guess that might be ok, looking out for gamma and gampa.

 

[StandingGoose]

So what to do when there are 50 alerts on your phone saying you have been exposed to COVID-19?

Get tested.

 

[Trik]

I think I must be the only person who thinks that an app could cause more problems than it solves...

All I can see is problems and situations where it just can't work, unless we all live in an ideal dream world where everyone owns a smart phone and everyone has that smart phone with them at all times. In this dream world, everyone who has had the virus has been to see a doctor or hospital and had it confirmed. In reality this just isn't the case.

I feel that if people have this app on their phones it could give them a false sense of security and they will get sloppy with their distancing and hygiene etc. If you put all your trust in the app then it will fail.

Problems I can see having thought about it for a few minutes include

1) Not everyone owns a smart phone. This is not just limited to elderly people, I know quite a few people who don't own a smart phone and some don't own a mobile at all. How are they going to stop these people from going out? Who is going to police this? I can't remember the last time I saw a policeman whilst out and about and certainly they aren't going to stop everyone on the streets to check to see if they have a mobile with them. Also I don't take my mobile phone with me every time I go out and I know many people who don't.

2) Even if people have a smart phone they aren't bound to have this 'wonder-app' installed. Even then, there are many people who have never turned on Bluetooth on their phones (I've never used it and I'm a techie developer).

3) I don't think that the positioning capabilities is accurate enough for this kind of task.

4) If data is exchanged by Bluetooth, this could happen between 2 people either side of a window and so even though they haven't been in contact it could give a positive contact result. Imagine several cars sat waiting at traffic lights and in this case there could potentially be several people all in close proximity but never in proper contact.

5) As I said before, I believe most people who have had the virus haven't been in touch with any medical advisors and have just done what the government has said to do - self isolate for and only if you aren't feeling better after a week get in touch with the medical advisors. None of these people would have been registered as having the virus so there may be lots of people walking around who they have spread it to before they isolated and none of them will show up as a positive on this app.

6) There are many very stupid people in this world and they will probably think that this app will stop them from getting this virus.

7) Person A who has tested positive at the hospital touched a surface a few minutes before person B did, but they didn't physically get within a couple of metres of each other. As far as I know, this won't trigger a positive and person B could have contracted the virus from the surface.

This is just a few minutes worth of thinking from me and is just a quick opinion

1) Yes, not everyone owns a smartphone. As of June 2019, the number is roughly 81% of Americans own a smartphone. I suspect that number may have inched up a little since then. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/

2) That is also true, but, if you live in a place like New York City, where installing the app may mean life or death, you will probably install it. Rough estimates point to 60% required for it to start being effective. I also suspect the percentage of people that own smartphones in NYC is higher than the national average.

3) I don't understand this point, GPS is not used. Bluetooth isn't used for position, just relative proximity. Nobody needs to know where I am, just how close I was to someone else that tested positive.

4) This is true, signal Strength can be taken into account. Also, since our phones generate a new code every 5 min, if you have 3+ codes from a positive person, that means you were in their proximity for at least 5m2s, or as many as 15 min. So more positive codes = higher chance of exposure.

5) Yes, testing must increase. This does not work without testing.

6) Some stupid people think ingesting bleach may help you cure the virus. Let's not play to the lowest common denominator.

7) That is true, you still need to not touch your face, wear a mask, be mindful of surfaces, wash your hands, use hand sanitizer, and ... follow the guidelines of the CDC.

-- This isn't some cure, it's a way to prevent huge flareups as we attempt to reopen the economy / relax stay at home orders. It will take 18-24 MONTHS to create a vaccine... we can't stay home for 2 years. That being said, we need a way to alert people they've come in contact with COVID so THEY can stay home for 14 days to be sure. Or else the numbers plateau, we relax stay at home orders, the numbers shoot back up, and we're all back in our houses.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Still not gonna happen with me.
The employers will be sued if that is what they want. It is a very slippery slope.

I expect states will pass laws explicitly saying employers can require this, if they don't outright require employers to require it.

What is next? Make sure everyone does not have AIDS and see who had slept with who?

If AIDS could be transmitted by breathing within 6 feet of another person, that might be a reasonable measure. As is, no. We teach people that STDs exist and tell them to be careful with vetting who they sleep with.

On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that there are a lot of asymptomatic carriers, so these contact tracing ideas are not perfect.

This is exactly what the contact tracing is for. Someone has no symptoms so no reason to get tested, except a notification pops up saying someone they were recently near tested positive - now this person has a reason to go get tested, even though they're asymptomatic. Maybe they got it from the other person who tested positive or maybe they gave it to that person. Either way, there's a reason to suspect they might be an asymptomatic carrier, so test them, and if they come back positive, have them self-quarantine.

 

[cuencap]

From what I read in a previous story the result is encoded/encrypted information in the form of a QR code sent by the lab to the user, who then scans it with their phone.

This is going to be the limiting factor of this technology. It still requires manual entry by someone who just tested positive and therefore may or may not be feeling very ill. Updating my status in an API/app would be the last thing I wanted to do if I were super sick.

 

[TechieGeek]

This is going to be the limiting factor of this technology. It still requires manual entry by someone who just tested positive and therefore may or may not be feeling very ill. Updating my status in an API/app would be the last thing I wanted to do if I were super sick.

The system is voluntary, as in you volunteer to upload your phone's past 14-days of beacons because you tested positive.

If you test positive, the first thing you'd want to do is alert everyone you've been near, so that they can self-quarantine from elderly, from people who are immunocompromised, so they can take extra precautions.

 

[cuencap]

The system is voluntary, as in you volunteer to upload your phone's past 14-days of beacons because you tested positive.

If you test positive, the first thing you'd want to do is alert everyone you've been near, so that they can self-quarantine from elderly, from people who are immunocompromised, so they can take extra precautions.

I understand that. My point is a majority of people who tested positive will not voluntarily update their status such that it triggers the beacon update. No matter how well intended they are, if you’re sick and in the hospital, the last thing you’ll remember to do is update your status. There will be a million other thoughts going through their minds.

 

[B4U]

I expect states will pass laws explicitly saying employers can require this, if they don't outright require employers to require it.



If AIDS could be transmitted by breathing within 6 feet of another person, that might be a reasonable measure. As is, no. We teach people that STDs exist and tell them to be careful with vetting who they sleep with.



This is exactly what the contact tracing is for. Someone has no symptoms so no reason to get tested, except a notification pops up saying someone they were recently near tested positive - now this person has a reason to go get tested, even though they're asymptomatic. Maybe they got it from the other person who tested positive or maybe they gave it to that person. Either way, there's a reason to suspect they might be an asymptomatic carrier, so test them, and if they come back positive, have them self-quarantine.

Still a slippery slope.
As soon as the states pass any laws like this, it will be challenged and it is going absolutely nowhere.
I used AIDS as an example of how far our privacy will be invaded once we open that Pandora's box. We can talk about flu, chickenpox, heck pretty much anything!

Said person is asymptomatic and recovered, so how and why would that person get tested in the first place to begin with?
The government can suspect all they want, but they cannot force anyone to get tested under our current laws.

 

[Trik]

Still a slippery slope.
As soon as the states pass any laws like this, it will be challenged and it is going absolutely nowhere.
I used AIDS as an example of how far our privacy will be invaded once we open that Pandora's box. We can talk about flu, chickenpox, heck pretty much anything!

Said person is asymptomatic and recovered, so how and why would that person get tested in the first place to begin with?
The government can suspect all they want, but they cannot force anyone to get tested under our current laws.

I suspect you don't live in New York City? No, this isn't being forced. But if you live in a densely populated area, you're much more open to trying things that work than maybe someone in rural Ohio with 4 acres of land and basement full of food. For those of us that DO live in cities, I will use this app, I will update it if I test positive, because even under stay at home, I still need to go to the grocery store, and I pass hundreds of people doing it. Nothing will be truly normal until we have a vaccine (or the miracle where it disappears because it is warm outside). And one of those will take 18-24 months, the other who knows how long.

 

[Yoshimura]

Anonymized is being used so heavily in every article.

I'll try again, anonymized would assume you can't discover the origin device. You literally have to for this to work. That means somewhere device id = anonymized id. You can change the anonymous id every five minutes but it still has to be in a table somewhere that said id at this time belongs to device id. That's the only way you are notified.

There is no such table. When someone is tested positive, their device simply add the anonymized ids it recoded to a public list. All participant devices periodically download this list and simply check if their anonymized id is in it.

 

[B4U]

I suspect you don't live in New York City? No, this isn't being forced. But if you live in a densely populated area, you're much more open to trying things that work than maybe someone in rural Ohio with 4 acres of land and basement full of food. For those of us that DO live in cities, I will use this app, I will update it if I test positive, because even under stay at home, I still need to go to the grocery store, and I pass hundreds of people doing it. Nothing will be truly normal until we have a vaccine (or the miracle where it disappears because it is warm outside). And one of those will take 18-24 months, the other who knows how long.

Hence I said in the very first reply...
Not gonna happen with ME.

 

[Trik]

Hence I said in the very first reply...
Not gonna happen with ME.

Awesome! Thank you for your contribution.

 

[citysnaps]

I understand that. My point is a majority of people who tested positive will not voluntarily update their status such that it triggers the beacon update. No matter how well intended they are, if you’re sick and in the hospital, the last thing you’ll remember to do is update your status. There will be a million other thoughts going through their minds.

I don't think you can speak for the majority of people. Indeed, many people who test positive may be asymptomatic and feel just fine. And I suspect would be glad to participate.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I understand that. My point is a majority of people who tested positive will not voluntarily update their status such that it triggers the beacon update. No matter how well intended they are, if you’re sick and in the hospital, the last thing you’ll remember to do is update your status. There will be a million other thoughts going through their minds.

Uh, no. Most people are not intubated when they get the results. Even if they are, their doctor can remind them to share the information. If the person isn't capable of consenting, someone else is probably able to unlock their phone (a spouse or parent) and upload the results, if they think it's something the person would have consented to.

 

[gnasher729]

I think I must be the only person who thinks that an app could cause more problems than it solves...

You're absolutely right. You're the only one. (Sorry, but you were asking for it).

Consider a situation where after long suffering the USA gets to a state with 100 people infected daily. If we continue to live like before, the number will double again every few days. This app can't prevent all infections, it can stop the spread. At that point with the app you might get 100 infected every day, 1000 going into isolation every day, 750 of them unnecessarily. Which is something that we can live with.

Note that the app will be needed _forever_ but the cost will be close to zero except when it protects you.
[automerge]1588175238[/automerge]

I live in Berlin (Germany) and I think my government's restrictions are very reasonable. Without question, however, they restrict a number of basic rights (freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of culture ...) for all citizens. If you reject this app because of data protection, you should make sure that you accept much more extensive restrictions for all citizens.

Hi Jandieck, the UK has (currently) rejected use of this API, with rumours that some friend of someone's friend has been given a £250,000,000 pound contract to develop an app. Are there any stories in Germany about development cost (which should be less than 1 hundredth of this ridiculous number, if you use Apple's API)?