They have a new tool coming online on this COVID-19 thing. Back in April Google and Apple announced that they could build a system for your phones that could help track this virus and make things a lot better. Of course, most of us thought, "Oh, no, we don't want them tracking our phones!" "But," they reassured us, "it's not tracking phones. It's tracking exposure."
Here's the way it is supposed to work. Smartphones enabled with this system will quietly, behind the scenes, listen with their Bluetooth ears for other phones. Bluetooth has a limited range, so they'd only "hear" phones within that range. (The strongest Bluetooth transmitters go 100 meters -- 328 feet. Most are around 10 meters -- 33 feet.) So every so often they will "ping" their surroundings and gather the phone ID's of those in their range and record it. Then, if you come down with the virus, they can go to your phone, track the places you have been, and find out who you were around at the time. Then they can notify them or perhaps trace where you got infected.
Seems pretty benign, actually. It's not linked. It's not monitored. No one is secretly gathering data. (That is, they say they aren't. I'm not a conspiracy nut, so I'll just go with that.) They only gather the information when the infection is verified in order to contact others who might be at risk. Seems reasonable. So that shouldn't be a problem.
Shouldn't.
It shouldn't be a problem when fighting a pandemic, but who is to say what pandemic they are fighting? The plan has been to incorporate this helpful software into all operating systems. So when we get a handle on this virus, what's the next objective? How about fighting the viral crime pandemic? Could they use it to arrest, say, an "Al Capone" type and track down the people he associated with to catch them all? Very possible. Could they get the information off a convicted prostitute's phone to get a list of customers? Not far fetched. Could they decide that Christians were a viral problem and hunt them down with the phones of others? Well, now ... I don't see the point ... now. I mean, right now they could simply walk into our churches and accomplish that trick. Maybe in China or North Korea or Iran, places where it's illegal. And, of course, there are currently those in America who are on a sort of "naughty list." You know, "subversive" types who preach that Christ must be obeyed above all and that God's Word teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin and stuff like that. Not too far fetched, then.
The question, then, comes down to a single start. Who gets to name the pandemic? If the law enforcement community considers a crime wave, say, as a pandemic-type event, do they get to use this? Would we even think that was a bad thing? If the the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) continues to gain momentum and clout or the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is taken as a valid source for hate group identification, could they be the source for "naming that pandemic"? I can't say for sure, but I really don't think it's that far out of the realm of possibility.
5 comments:
Honestly, It's not something I'd be too excited about having on my phone.
I do think your concern about who decides is well founded. In our current climate, I can see those sorts of decisions being made based on things like politics, or religious affiliation, or some other affiliation that should be protected under the constitution. This sort of thing would certainly be a concern in theocratic or repressive countries.
It's tempting to think that this would be helpful to track criminals, but by investigating everyone who comes withing tracking range of someone's phone you seem to be raising constitutional issues.
But, as always, who makes that choice is the big question. Unfortunately, the feds don't have a great track record with these sorts of things.
Exactly. And there are so many potential abuses of this kind of arrangement that I would think it ultimately unthinkable as anything beyond a momentary approach to a temporary crisis that must be ended when this crisis is.
One more thought. I see way too many who believe that the government is capable of making these sorts of decisions, and doing so in the best interests of the country (state, city, etc.). Yet we've seen a long history of government using it's powers in ways that are not in the best interest of those they govern. To naively think that this sort of app will not be used in ways that harm people is the height of foolishness.
Of course, it's impossible to have this sort on conversation without noting that we constantly see communities voting for elected officials that push policies that harm their constituents, and who have done so for decades.
I am curious how many adults you know who have never owned a cell phone.
I mostly get by fine with never having owned one, but once every couple of years I get a glare from someone (clerk working the counter, for instance) for saying, "Ah, except I can't do that because my phone still plugs into the wall." At one retail store the clerk became visibly concerned that I would not have enough money banked to buy the pricy item that was not in stock at that location that I wanted them to special-order. I didn't say it, but I was thinking, "My net worth is probably around ten times your net worth."
The main thing I'm missing out on is store discounts that depend on having an app on a phone.
I know almost none who have never owned a cell phone. I know more than a few who have never owned a smartphone. (My wife and I got our first ones 3 years ago, and that by coercion, so to speak.) I experienced the same kind of responses at time. "Would you like a coupon for money off on your next purchase?" "Are you going to put it on my smartphone?" "Yes!" I didn't get the coupon. I never experienced the question of worth, but I was laughed at when they found out my job was technology and I was avoiding that technology.
But, to connect this with the post, I do not believe that flip phones have the capability of operating with this new tracking plan.
Post a Comment