Coronavirus, what happens next

[Kilkis]

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that once the App is issued anybody who doesn't have a smart phone will be euthenised as they pose too big a risk to the wider community.

It is not a case of testing being a preferred option. If all you have is testing then you would need to test the whole population daily. The options are either you isolate everybody for ever or you very carefully find anybody who has the virus and isolate them. Testing is part of that second option but it is useless without the find part.

Warwick

[Keltz]

Maybe the NHS will issue free smartphones as a preventative option.

Especially as Apple and Google are looking to changing their software and include this functionality as part of the basic IOS and Android operating system.

It may be an API interface today but looks like they see an opportunity to build this into the phone itself and this is being planned as phase 2 of the covid virus app work. Of course we would have the option to turn it off am sure but Apple and Google have made billions collecting personal data for advertising and selling election targeting data. Must be very tempting and brings further into question how much your phone monitors daily usage and movement.

[Kookla]

Clio, thanks for the website link
Tim, photos to follow no doubt?
Footscapes, sock mask looks good too.
Kilkis, I don’t have a mobile phone now, let alone a smart one! So, I’ll be first in line to be euthanised and easy to spot and round up, as I will have various undergarments on my face!

[Kamisiana]

New Chinese face masks being shipped to Greece
http://toopanda.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... 83x430.jpg

[Kilkis]

...It may be an API interface today but looks like they see an opportunity to build this into the phone itself and this is being planned as phase 2 of the covid virus app work...

By definition an API is part of the operating system, it is built in. It means Application Programming Interface. It allows some one to build an App, i.e. an Application, that a user would install. The App exchanges data with the operating ssytem via one or more API's. The operating system controls what the App can and can't do through the APIs.

This particular API has very strict controls which is why some governments don't want to use it. They want to access the basic functions of the operating systems themselves so they can do things that this particular API won't allow them to do. There are other APIs that will allow them to access things like Blue Tooth so that they can be independent of the contact tracing API but those other API's limit what they can do in different ways. The operating system can access Blue Tooth directly so it can do things to Blue Tooth that an App cannot do because the Blue Tooth API won't allow them to. One possibility is that using the Apple/Google API has a very tiny effect on power consumption because the API has used Blue Tooth in clever ways while the stand alone App makes heavy power demands. That could prompt users to disable it.

It is possible that Apple and Google will develop their own App in the future but that would use their own API. Apps by definition are not built in they are installed on top of the operating system. It is true that some Apps are pre-installed by the phone builder and cannot be removed but they still sit on top of the operating system and communicate with it through APIs.

Warwick

PS No good for Greece, Kamisiana. They would need a smaller hole on the other side for the frappe straw.

[Keltz]

By definition an API is part of the operating system, it is built in.

Yes but the App is not and that is what is being proposed, to make funtions of the 'virus' App part of the OS so not an App at all but code within the operating system that may have limited access through an API.

The ability of OS's like Windows and Android to act as hardware controllers enables anyone to write an App with full knowledge that it will work on Windows or Android by conforming to the parameters required by the OS as defined by the API that specifically give access to hardware such as screen, microphone etc using compatable code that the OS can runs in isolation. The more access an App uses through its API the more requests for Permissions you will see when installng the App.

The API isolates the App from the OS allowing only specific operations to be performed on the hardware as defined in the API and does not have access to any of the operating system code excecpt to instruct the OS as defined by the API. If you want an App to work directly within the OS this is generally known as Jailbreaking.

[Tim]

The Greek government has just announced that movement between midnight and 6am will be strictly limited (keep talking Greece). The cat burglars amongst us will just have to find something else to do in the wee small hours.

Tim

[Kilkis]

..Yes but the App is not and that is what is being proposed, to make funtions of the 'virus' App part of the OS so not an App at all but code within the operating system that may have limited access through an API...

Do you have a source of information for that proposal? As far as I am aware Apple and Google are building into the operating system the capability to automatically measure Blue Tooth signals from any phone that is within Blue Tooth range, to use that information to determine the proximity of the other phone, to measure how long the two phones remain within a certain range and on the basis of that information to exchange encrypted tokens between the phones. The tokens remain on the phone for a specified period of time and are then deleted. All that takes place within the operating system and no App developer can influence in any way how that is done. They can't alter the parameters that determine whether a token is exchanged or not. They have no direct access to the tokens themselves. All any App can do is allow the person whose phone it is to enter that they are infected with COVID-19, either on the basis of symptoms or a test. The App would then pass the information to the operating system through the API and the operating system would send out an alert to every person who exchanged a token with that phone. The App would not know how many alerts were sent out. It would not know who they were sent to. The people receiving the alerts would not know who they came from, just that they have been in "contact" with someone who has COVID-19. The App would have no control over what the recipients do with that information and nobody would know who received an alert. I am not sure how that is building an App into the operating system.

Any country that is building their own App that does not rely on the Google/Apple API have no access to the operating system. Only Apple and Google have that. If you want to build a stand alone App then you have to accept the standard access to the operating system that the two operating systems allow and build all the functionality into the App. For example the App could continuously monitor your geo-location using the GPS system on the phone, continuously log your location to a cloud server and then cross reference the geo-location of every citizen with the App installed. If someone then informed the App that they had symptoms the cloud server could track your movements over the last 14 days and inform everybody you came close to. Obviously such an App could be used for many other purposes by an unscrupulous government. I know which form of App I would prefer.

Warwick

[Keltz]

The security risks and complexity of Bluetooth are well documented and not addressed by Google/Apple proposal sufficiently as a potentially life saving tool some may depend on in the future.
https://www.wired.com/story/bluetooth-c ... rity-risk/

From the following document..
"in the coming months, Apple and Google will work to enable a broader Bluetooth-based contact tracing platform by building this functionality into the underlying platforms. This is a more robust solution than an API ..."

The key words are "Bluetooth-based" contact tracing functionality, functionality that will reside in the OS and therefore active when the phone is switched on. Functionality that will be open to future development by Google and Apple only.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/04/ ... echnology/

[Kilkis]

I think the sort of risks described in the linked article are actually higher with a stand alone App, like the NHS one, than with the Apple/Google built in system. It is much easier for malevolent players to hack an App or trick people into installing a hacked App than it is for hackers to hack the operating system itself.

I think we are getting into semantics here, Keltz. As far as I can see there are four possible alternatives:

1 You do not attempt to have any automated contact tracing at all. You can rely solely on manual contact tracing. That is as secure as the people operating the scheme. Thousands of people would be involved and any one of them could release information about positive cases and contacts. This is the most costly method, the least effective method and the least secure.
2 You can build an App that tracks everybody everywhere they go and logs the data in cloud servers. This would allow a government body to trace contacts of identified positive cases simply by cross correlating everybody's movements. It also allows the government to use the tracking data for any other purpose that suits them. This is the sort of system that an authoritarian government like China would prefer and, indeed, was in the process of building long before COVID-19 appeared using a variety of technologies. It was already using it to dramatically control citizens behaviour. Personally I would totally reject such a system.
3 You can build an App, like the NHS one, which works on the basis of exchanging tokens and the tokens are stored centrally on a cloud server. This provides the government with a lot less information than option 2 but potentially with more information than option 4.
4 You can build a system like the Apple/Google one that exchanges tokens that are only stored on the phones of the individuals that have been in contact. This provides the least information to governments.

No system is 100 % secure. Catching COVID-19 is quite a high risk, especially for old dodderers like me. Maintaining privacy is important - I don't trust any government anywhere. My personal judgement is that option 4 gives the best balance between reducing COVID-19 risk, maintaining a reasonable level of security and maximising privacy. Would you advocate one of the other options? Do you have an alternative option?

Warwick

[Keltz]

I think I mentioned earlier, perhaps tongue in cheek, that the NHS could give free mobile phones as a preventative measure in the push for contact tracing to help contain the virus.

Thing is, discussion in the media on keeping track of the occurrence of Covid19 is limited and not forward looking enough in the 'new normal' lexicon now being used in daily government broadcasts.

This tells us two things, that governments are ( rightly ) unsure of how to implement social changes demanded by covid19 without causing undue social and economic chaos and that the impact is worldwide therefore requiring more international cooperation cutting across political divisions and economic opportunism ( good luck with that one! ).

Apple and Google already operate across most if not all countries. They are in prime position to lead changes across the world that affect how people interact in our communities and our ability to move about.

We see just now in Crete restrictions that range from local travel only, to Prefecture travel only, to within Country travel only, to overseas Countries travel restrictions. Some of these restrictions may be with us for a long time to come and depending on further virus flare-ups governments intend to re-impose the more restrictive measures at short notice.

Perhaps up to only a few months ago, certainly most of my life I have looked on government surveillance as something to be wary of. The potential is always there for government to go too far in restricting personal freedom.

Having experienced the effect of covid19 ( putting to one side the imminent global warming issues that covid19 restrictions have to some extent addressed ) I am now thinking, well, maybe, some restrictions on personal freedoms are actually needed and will have some important benefits. I think I may be softening my resistance to such things.

Normalisation in use of mobile phones, Apps and the Internet Browsers that every day ask you to accept collection of your personal information. The extensive use of Facebook across the world that we know hoovers up so much information about our daily live ( whether you have a Facebook account or not! ). Yet we still use them all! Every day!

So when we eventually realise that life has actually changed long term and that governments have noticed the softening of resistance to personal freedoms because it actually might be the right thing to do, plus our increased reliance on the Internet for everyday life.……..it is but a small step to then just put a chip inside everyone, that contains your health status, economic status, criminal status and a record of your movement.

Apps won't do that. Bluetooth won't do that instead requires fundamental changes to the most used mobile internet systems across the world ie. Apple and Android.

[Jean]

As masks are now compulsory, (as/when lockdown measures ease),in ‘indoor public places’

Are masks now compulsory? And if so where and under which circumstances?
And if they are compulsory can you now buy them? Or are they still in short supply?

[Yin&Yang]

The wearing of face masks in enclosed and busy places will be compulsory from Monday, 4th May, when some lockdown restrictions will have been lifted. I think that face masks remain in short supply here hence several forum members posting very useful links on how to quite easily make your own, washable ones.

[Jean]

The wearing of face masks in enclosed and busy places will be compulsory from Monday, 4th May

That's been said officially?
Enclosed is pretty straightforward but what defines busy?
What are the penalties for not doing so?

Sorry, I am not quibbling with your reply but I am trying to get official and clear information on it.

[Clio]

An update to the link I posted earlier to an online Greek company providing washable white cotton face masks...mine arrived this morning, just as promised, having been ordered on Sunday night. Each in its own cellophane envelope, labelled Made in Greece, sent from Heraklion. I'm very happy with bestpharmacy.gr.