Do we need bios for everyone?
yes I think so, helps give context. Also, I can then make you nice flyers to promote it if you like.
Cannot commit to chasing people around though. Plus, I fear âtoo many words on the pageâ. Letâs give it until Monday and re-evaluate.
Of course, Alessandro. Thatâs what I am doing myself. Just click on the link Thursday at 17.00.
1 Like
Sounds like a worthy conversation to have. Have suggested to you on the birdsite to also invite Martijntje Smits (@martijntjesmits https://martijntje.nl/ ). Sheâs been vocal in the past weeks on precisely this topic. (her background is in philosophy of technology / ethics)
I may not be able to join the session myself, 17-19hrs is a key family timeslot in the day, so will look forward to the resulting output.
1 Like
Hosting a conversation about a surveillance pandemic on Zoom is like hosting a conference about Philip Morris corruption in a fumoir. Absurd!
Iâm happy to help you by providing a Jitsi instance and any help you need to use it successfully. Itâs just a matter of adapting the configuration to whatever are your special needs. You can find more people willing to help at https://framatalk.org/accueil/en/info/ .
On some of the problems with Zoom (and others):
There are better ways:
Hello @Federico, and welcome. Thanks for your links. We are aware of the problem, as explained above. We are already exploring a number of alternatives, including an offer for Jitsi-on-our-own-server.
I do not think any of the alternatives will be battle-tested by Thursday. If our tech make the call that we can migrate the event, we will, happily. If not, we wonât. The bad of using Zoom is a bit mitigated by the fact that we want the proceedings to be public and open source anyway, so our privacy needs are low.
Hi all, great meeting and just checking⌠it will be hosted on Zoom on 9th Apr 1700?
1 Like
CET or CEST?
CEST. I just updated the first post of the topic.
1 Like
The Chaos Computer Club, bless their anarchistsâ hearts, published a list of minimal requirements that contact tracing apps should have. I am just going to leave it here. Among them:
The system must be designed in such a way that movement profiles (location tracking) or contact profiles (patterns of frequent contacts traceable to specific people) canât be established intentionally or unintentionally. Methods such as central GPS/location logging or linking the data to telephone numbers, social media accounts and the like must therefore be rejected as a matter of principle.
And, for the joy of @RobvanKranenburg:
IDs for âcontact tracingâ via wireless technology (e.g. Bluetooth or ultrasound) must not be traceable to persons and must change frequently. For this reason, it is also forbidden to connect or derive IDs with accompanying communication data such as push tokens, telephone numbers, IP addresses used, device IDs etc.
https://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2020/contact-tracing-requirements
1 Like
Would be good if the ccc could have a look at
https://github.com/disposableidentities/healthcrisis/blob/master/README.md
@RobvanKranenburg even if they looked at it, they are refusing to greenlight any tech solution. I think they are right in taking that stance. In infosec you can only prove that things are broken, you can never prove a negative result that things are not broken.
CCC will under no circumstances ever provide a concrete implementation with approval, recommendation, a certificate or test seal.
It is the responsibility of the developers of contact tracing systems to prove the fulfillment of these requirements or to have them proven by independent third parties.
So easy. Just critique, never come with a positive solution.
Rob, itâs just how it works. Science is the same by the way: you can only finally disprove a theory, never positively prove it.
Nice to see you back! Aŕšŕ¸ŕ¸ŕ¸ŕšŕ¸%ŕšn=u{:ŕš
1 Like
Well, I think in this day and age you are v very irrelevant then.
Would not be the first time 