Apple and Google's contact tracing effort raises fascinating new questions

Bob O'Donnell

Posts: 81   +1
Staff member
Why it matters: In a move that caught many off guard, Apple and Google announced an effort to create a standardized means of sharing information about the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Utilizing the Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) technology that’s been built into smartphones for the last 6 or 7 years and some clever mechanisms for anonymizing the data, the companies are working on building a standard API that can be used to inform people if they’ve come into contact with someone who’s tested positive for the virus.

Initially those efforts will require people to download and enable specialized applications from known health care providers, but eventually the two companies plan to embed this capability directly into their respective mobile phone operating systems: iOS and Android.

Numerous articles have already been written about some of the technical details of how it works and the companies themselves have put together a relatively simple explanation of the process. Rather than focusing on those details, however, I’ve been thinking more about the second-order impacts from such a move and what they have to say about the state of technology in our lives.

First, it’s amazing to think how far-reaching and impactful an effort like this could prove to be. While it may be somewhat obvious on one hand, it’s also easy to forget how widespread and common these technologies have become. In an era when it’s often difficult to get coordinated efforts within a single country (or even state), with one decisive step these two tech industry titans are working to put together a potential solution that could work for most of the world. (Roughly half the world’s population owns a smartphone that runs one of these OS’s and a large percentage of people who don’t have one likely live with others who do.) That’s incredible.

With a few notable exceptions, tech industry developments essentially ignore country boundaries and have become global in nature right before our eyes. At times like this, that’s a profoundly powerful position to be in—and a strong reason to hope that, despite potential difficulties, the effort is a success. Of course, because of that reach and power, it also wouldn’t be terribly surprising to see some governments raise concerns about these advancements as they are further developed and as the potential extent of their influence becomes more apparent. Ultimately, however, while there has been discussion in the past of the potential good that technology can bring to the world, this combined effort could prove to be one of the starkest examples we’ve all experienced.

Unfortunately, some of the concerns regarding security, privacy and control that have been raised about this new effort also highlight one of the starkest examples of what the potential misuse of widespread technology could do. And this is where some of the biggest questions about this project are centered. Even people who understand that the best of intentions are at play also know that concerns about data manipulation, creating false hopes (or fears) and much more are certainly valid when you start talking about putting that many people’s lives and personal health data under this level of technical control and scrutiny.

Let’s hope that as more people get smarter about the type of tracking efforts that really do matter and can potentially impact people’s lives in a positive way, we’ll see much more scrutiny of these other unimportant tracking efforts.

While there are no easy answers to these types of questions, one positive outcome I certainly hope to see as a result of this effort is enhanced scrutiny of any kind of personal tracking technologies, particularly those focused on location tracking. Many of these location-based or application-driven efforts to harvest data on what we’re doing, what we’re reading, where we’re going, and so on—most all of which are done for the absurdly unimportant task of “personalizing” advertisements—have already gotten way out of hand. In fact, it felt like many of these technologies were just starting to see some real push back as the pandemic hit.

Let’s hope that as more people get smarter about the type of tracking efforts that really do matter and can potentially impact people’s lives in a positive way, we’ll see much more scrutiny of these other unimportant tracking efforts. In fact, with any luck there will be much more concentrated efforts to roll back or, even better, completely ban these hidden, little understood and yet incredibly invasive technologies and the mountains of data they create. As it is, they have existed for far too long. The more light that can be shone into these darker sides of technology abuse, the more outrage it will undoubtedly cause.

Finally, on a very different note, I am quite curious to see how this combined Apple Google effort could end up impacting the overall view of Google. While Apple is generally seen to be a trustworthy company, many people still harbor concerns around trusting Google because of some of the data collection policies (as well as ad targeting efforts) that the company has utilized in the past. If Google handles these efforts well—and uses the opportunity to become more forthright about its other data handling endeavors—I believe they could gain a great deal of trust back from many consumers. They’ve certainly started making efforts in that regard, so I hope they can use this experience to do even more.

Of course, if the overall efficacy of this joint effort doesn’t prove to be as useful or beneficial as the theory of it certainly sounds—and numerous concerns are already being raised—none of these second-order impacts will matter much. I am hopeful, however, that progress can be made—not only for the ongoing process of managing people’s health and information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic—but for how technology can be smartly leveraged in powerful and far-reaching ways.

Bob O’Donnell is the founder and chief analyst of TECHnalysis Research, LLC a technology consulting and market research firm. You can follow him on Twitter . This article was originally published on Tech.pinions.

Permalink to story.

 
All I see is a massive breach of privacy.

Furthermore, this is basically an admonition that Coronavirus outbreaks aren't going away.
 
Now to somebody write a code to hijack the tracking and mark everyone as infected.
 
Tracking where the virus goes is a fool's errand
(Hint: It's everywhere!)

Try finding out where it came from and how it is mutating are far more important questions

If only Google knew how to do a Google Search....
Like Here: @ 1 min and 22 seconds

or here:
 
Last edited:
Why would they stop there? They could add decryption of the "anonymous" identifiers to then help identify terrorist networks. Then criminal networks. Businesses could see if their employees with company phones are meeting employment agents or staff at rival companies. Then partners could identify who their spouses are meeting. The list goes on. Better to just say no now.
 
All I see is a massive breach of privacy.

Furthermore, this is basically an admonition that Coronavirus outbreaks aren't going away.

I mean, no one ever claimed they were going away. It will be with us until there is a vaccine, as catching and getting over a corronavirus tends to only provide temporary immunity (usually only lasting months). We're still pining down the exact immunity length of COVID19, but it seems to be between 3-5 months.

Also, Techspot admins: can we get a report button? Or just turn off the comments on COVID19 articles? Bullwinkle M is posting straight conspiracy theories.
 
Also, Techspot admins: can we get a report button? Or just turn off the comments on COVID19 articles? Bullwinkle M is posting straight conspiracy theories.
I don't know. I found the second video very interesting. While I don't yet accept it as factual, it at least shows that someone is asking these questions and doing some research. Based on Trump's recent cancellation of funding for the WHO, I would guess that the US administration is buying into some of these "conspiracy theories" too. There is a possibility that some of these theories become fact and I don't think we should necessarily delete them. Just don't fully believe them either.

I found the second video interesting because, when I first heard of the coronavirus in Wuhan and that Wuhan has an Institute of Virology, I did wonder if some negligently discarded lab experiments or waste product had found its way into the human food chain. So I am interested in anything that investigates that possibility. But I'm not ready to call it factual yet.

Tracking where the virus goes is a fool's errand
(Hint: It's everywhere!)

Well, it's not really a fool's errand. It's important to understand how and where the virus is spreading. That kind of information can lead to shifts in the strategy of how to contain it. And informing people of possible contamination from recent close contacts is another important factor in locking it down before it spreads further. There are multiple avenues that should be explored: knowledge of the virus and how it spreads, containment, history, mutations, vaccines and medical treatments. All are important.
 
I mean, no one ever claimed they were going away. It will be with us until there is a vaccine, as catching and getting over a corronavirus tends to only provide temporary immunity (usually only lasting months). We're still pining down the exact immunity length of COVID19, but it seems to be between 3-5 months.

Also, Techspot admins: can we get a report button? Or just turn off the comments on COVID19 articles? Bullwinkle M is posting straight conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theory? I didn't know that!

Please provide factual (verifiable) evidence that my post was a conspiracy theory
I'd love to have the truth, but we need evidence regardless of the truth
Please provide yours

Until then, I will hear ALL available arguements regardless of where it leads
If your "evidence" turns out to be factual and verifiable, I will support it
If you do not have verifiable evidence that my post was a conspiracy theory, I will still listen to your conterpoint until we get the evidence we need to make such a determination (even if your counterpoint turns out to be a conspiracy theory)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Conspiracy theory?

I diddn't know that!

Please provide factual (verifiable) evidence that my post was a conspiracy theory

I'd love to have the truth, but we need evidence regardless of the truth

Please provide yours

Until then, I will hear ALL available arguements regardless of where it leads

If your "evidence" turns out to be factual and verifiable, I will support it

If you do not have verifiable evidence that my post was a conspiracy theory, I will still listen to your conterpoint until we get the evidence we need to make such a determination
(even if your counterpoint turns out to be a conspiracy theory)

Sure. Citations, with their own citations.

A study on the actual RNA structure compared to other corona viruses.
"Of course, scientists tell us that SARS-CoV-2 did not escape from a jar: RNA sequences closely resemble those of viruses that silently circulate in bats, and epidemiologic information implicates a bat-origin virus infecting unidentified animal species sold in China’s live-animal markets."
[emphasis mine]


The virus spike itself, which is what makes this virus so contagious, would be impossible to create with current technology.
"While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation."
[emphasis mine]
"It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (I) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer."
[emphasis mine]


And to top it off, the origin of the conspiracy itself:
This paper's sole argument that it's man-made is noting that there is biological research lab located close to the wet market. That is it. You'll note that 4 months into the worst pandemic in a century, a paper on said pandemic has 0 citations. No one studying the virus feels it is worth citing the work of this paper, not even the people who studied the possibility that it was man-made or a natural virus the Chinese (or someone) tried to weaponize. In fact, it was even deleted by the original author from its original publishing site - Research Gate - and can now only be found on rehosting sites like Scribd, presumably because the author was being called out for publishing a paper without much academic rigor applied to it's claims.

Now, I await something other than un-cited Youtube videos - and peer reviewed - from you.
 
Sure. Citations, with their own citations.

A study on the actual RNA structure compared to other corona viruses.
"Of course, scientists tell us that SARS-CoV-2 did not escape from a jar: RNA sequences closely resemble those of viruses that silently circulate in bats, and epidemiologic information implicates a bat-origin virus infecting unidentified animal species sold in China’s live-animal markets."
[emphasis mine]


The virus spike itself, which is what makes this virus so contagious, would be impossible to create with current technology.
"While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation."
[emphasis mine]
"It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (I) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer."
[emphasis mine]


And to top it off, the origin of the conspiracy itself:
This paper's sole argument that it's man-made is noting that there is biological research lab located close to the wet market. That is it. You'll note that 4 months into the worst pandemic in a century, a paper on said pandemic has 0 citations. No one studying the virus feels it is worth citing the work of this paper, not even the people who studied the possibility that it was man-made or a natural virus the Chinese (or someone) tried to weaponize. In fact, it was even deleted by the original author from its original publishing site - Research Gate - and can now only be found on rehosting sites like Scribd, presumably because the author was being called out for publishing a paper without much academic rigor applied to it's claims.

Now, I await something other than un-cited Youtube videos - and peer reviewed - from you.

LoL
peer review is just another term for conspiracy theory


I'd rather watch Fox news


https://www.foxnews.com/science/sig...n-discovered-could-make-vaccine-search-futile
 
Last edited:
Actually, there's a high probability COVID-19 was manufactured in a lab:
https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787
From your own link:

"Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus."
 
"Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus."

Yeah, it's like catching your wife naked in the bed with a plumber, and she says: "It's not what it looks like". Sure... "it's not". What else can she say?
 
Yeah, it's like catching your wife naked in the bed with a plumber, and she says: "It's not what it looks like". Sure... "it's not". What else can she say?
The story is either one to be trusted - in which case, it contradicts your argument - or it is not to be trusted - in which case it cannot support your argument. You can't have it both ways.
 
The article posted by the scientists is to be trusted. A dangerous coronavirus that is between the common cold and SARS has been developed. And then the research was banned, because such projects were deemed too dangerous. That's true, because there are other sources than Nature.

But the editor's comment "there's no evidence it's the same virus" just means that nobody was actually appointed to conduct a research whether it's exactly the same virus or not. However, the article actually proves that such lab-developed variations of the virus exist and were a subject of research just a little bit prior than it appeared among humans in China.
 
The article posted by the scientists is to be trusted. A dangerous coronavirus that is between the common cold and SARS has been developed. And then the research was banned, because such projects were deemed too dangerous. That's true, because there are other sources than Nature.

But the editor's comment "there's no evidence it's the same virus" just means that nobody was actually appointed to conduct a research whether it's exactly the same virus or not. However, the article actually proves that such lab-developed variations of the virus exist and were a subject of research just a little bit prior than it appeared among humans in China.

""Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus."

Please use the full quote.
 
From your own link:

"Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus."
Here's the thing, the story about the corona virus being "engineered" IS more than likely bullsh!t.

However, the speculation that it came from the Yunnan lab, may not be.

If any "governmental entity", knew or believed beforehand that a virus could be identified as, "bio-engineered", they wouldn't use it, if only to avoid being accused of "germ warfare".

OTOH, the Chinese scientists at the Yunnan lab, have considerable experience working with this, and the prior SARS / corona outbreak.

The fact that this is a naturally occurring strain, gives China "plausible deniability", with respect to its origin.

All the thought given to this debate has concluded it's one or the other, (from an animal or engineered in the lab).

It's easier to culture a virus than it is to engineer one. Hence, both statements could be true. It's a natural strain, which was released by the lab, at the market.
 
Last edited:
Here's the thing, the story about the corona virus being "engineered" IS more than likely bullsh!t.

However, the speculation that it came from the Yunnan lab, may not be.

If any "governmental entity", knew or believed beforehand that a virus could be identified as, "bio-engineered", they wouldn't use it, if only to avoid being accused of "germ warfare".

OTOH, the Chinese scientists at the Yunnan lab, have considerable experience working with this, and the prior SARS / corona outbreak.

The fact that this is a naturally occurring strain, gives China "plausible deniability", with respect to its origin.

All the thought given to this debate has concluded it's one or the other, (from an animal or engineered in the lab).

It's easier to culture a virus than it is to engineer one. Hence, both statements could be true. It's a natural strain, which was released by the lab, at the market.

Sure. I would be willing to buy that: that this virus was a naturally occurring one that was being studied in a lab. I would like to see some papers actually studying this virus pre-pandemic to be sure, but you can't prove a negative - lack of papers does not prove it wasn't being studied there.

The 'came from a wet market' theory seems just as valid to me though. If 'biolabs exist in wuhan' is a viable explanation for how it originally made it into the city, so is 'wet markets exist in wuhan'.
 
The 'came from a wet market' theory seems just as valid to me though. If 'biolabs exist in wuhan' is a viable explanation for how it originally made it into the city, so is 'wet markets exist in wuhan'.

I never said it was developed and spread by a Wuhan lab.

There's a lot more than just that paper showing this was a long-planned thing. Just like the crisis of 2008, this is a many-faceted crisis. Financial, social, medical, all kind of ****. You don't find that many applications of a crisis unless you planned it for a long time. And please don't say "conspiracy theory" because if you still believe in a very naive beautiful world, in which only random accidents happen, you need to get older and learn a lot more.
 
Sure. I would be willing to buy that: that this virus was a naturally occurring one that was being studied in a lab. I would like to see some papers actually studying this virus pre-pandemic to be sure, but you can't prove a negative - lack of papers does not prove it wasn't being studied there.
The fact that the Chinese are refusing to allow investigators into the areas, certainly , if perhaps only tacitly, does, "prove a negative".
 
I never said it was developed and spread by a Wuhan lab.

There's a lot more than just that paper showing this was a long-planned thing. Just like the crisis of 2008, this is a many-faceted crisis. Financial, social, medical, all kind of ****. You don't find that many applications of a crisis unless you planned it for a long time. And please don't say "conspiracy theory" because if you still believe in a very naive beautiful world, in which only random accidents happen, you need to get older and learn a lot more.
I wasn't replying to you - but please cite your sources if you have any. Your post is conjecture at best right now.

The fact that the Chinese are refusing to allow investigators into the areas, certainly , if perhaps only tacitly, does, "prove a negative".
Logically, you can't prove a negative. Its not falsifiable. Is it evidence? yes. Is it proof? No.
 
Logically, you can't prove a negative. Its not falsifiable. Is it evidence? yes. Is it proof? No....[ ]....
Which is why our legal system has separate charges at its disposal in such instances. As examples, hindering prosecution. obstructing justice, tampering with evidence, and interfering with a police investigation, to name just four.

You could also tack on, "conspiracy", if it were found that more than two were involved..

On the downside, it should be a "truth which is self evident", that our justice system is naught but a "partisan kangaroo court", when Trump's impeachment is offered as an example. An outside observer could speculate there was, "jury nullification" before the fact.

Here's some "light reading" on this pandemic: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...otection-georgia-states-reopening/2997805001/
 
Last edited:
It's actually irrelevant whether this particular virus was manufactured in a lab or not, since countries like Sweden, Belarus and India clearly demonstrate it's got the same mortality rate as a bit stronger flu, which we regularly get every 3-4 years. In fact, 2016-2017 season had a much higher mortality than 2019-2020 but nobody panicked about that.
 
Back