In my opinion - these types of data are poor proxies for the ground truth we really seek: actual #COVID19 infection rates -- which can only be truly known by widespread testing. If we had testing in place, it would make the need to pursue these privacy-invasive techniques moot
While I suspect these tools will be framed as 'voluntary / opt-in' -- they will eventually become compulsory once policymakers begin to rely on them in order to decide, for example, who can leave the house or who can return to work -- setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
This type of approach is likely to generate significant FALSE POSITIVES and FALSE NEGATIVES -- which is highly problematic when this data is (eventually) used to make decisions that will affect citizen's freedoms -- voluntarily or not.
Bluetooth signals traverse walls, linking you to your neighbor even if you've never actually been in actual physical contact (for example, in an apartment building).
Similarly, we don't necessarily carry our smartphones all the time -- for example when meeting a delivery person in front of their house, etc -- and many individuals (i.e children and the elderly) don't have smartphones.

This will lead to SIGNIFICANT false negatives.
MOST IMPORTANTLY there's a REAL risk of abuse from these apps -- generating false alarms and Denial-of-Service attacks from people falsely flagging that they're infected with COVID19 (crying 'wolf) -- thereby potentially affecting the others they've digitally been in contact with
You can follow @ashk4n.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: