Google Apple Contact Tracing (GACT): a wolf in sheep’s clothes?
The article is entirely premised on Apple and Google not giving users control over whether tracing is enabled. Indeed, if they don&#x27;t, that would be bad. If they do, the concerns in this article do not apply.<p>&gt; GACT creates a dormant functionality for mass surveillance, that can be turned on with the flip of a virtual switch at Apple or Google HQ.<p>If you don&#x27;t trust Google or Apple to do what they say they do then you need to stop using their OS and hardware. It is already the case that Google and Apple can push (more) surveillance into your device anytime. GACT does not change that.<p>&gt; Which makes the whole GACT platform a smokescreen really, as exactly the strong oversight would be required if the GACT platform was not there, and apps requested special access to Bluetooth to implement their own contact tracing technology.<p>Not at all. Plausible advantages of GACT: a) Google and Apple don&#x27;t have to evaluate the properties of each app&#x27;s Bluetooth protocol; b) standardizing the protocol prevents Balkanization and makes tracing much more effective; c) Google and Apple are likely to implement it better.<p>Another problem with this article is that the criticism is not constructive. If we believe the conclusions of the article, then what? Is there a better way to leverage smartphones for contact tracing? Or should we abjure smartphone-powered contact tracing? Doing what instead? &quot;This sucks&quot; without comparing it to alternatives is not actionable.