To explain further - just enabling this feature does not help you also have to install apps which use this framework for it to be effective.
The use of this feature is mandatory in some countries. For e.g in India to travel I need to have Government approved health notification apps running on my phone if I want to board a plane or a train. I am sure it will be the case in other countries as well.
Users who do not agree with this framework’s being on their device can keep it disabled and not install any of these Apps.
My personal views apart which would be to do away with the code all together, I guess /e/ as an organization will always go by the common interest.
Given that Covid shows no signs of dissipating and Governments across the world are using this framework to track the spread of the virus, the implementation of the framework in a disabled-by-default mode may be the eventual winner.
The alternative is users carry two phones at all times on their person which does not look like a workable solution.
To the question as to when it will be decided - I can say soon 1-2 weeks if not sooner.
If the decision is to implement we will release it for testing first before releasing it via OTA for all devices.
The implementation of this framework seem to be very privacy friendly, if it does what it prommises. You can’t be traced because of usage of random keys. It is not mandatory in the Netherlands, but I would still use it. This virus seem to me more evil than the framework implementation. I have more doubts about other microg features
Just to understand it. No smartphone == no travel by train || plane. Thus people with an oldfashined mobile, a mobile turned off (e.g. battery empty) or no mobile at all cannot travel?
Yes the last time I checked it was mandatory…check this external link to a travel booking site. The first requirement itself is to have the app on mobiles !!!
/e/ could remove the code (which I don’t hope) from microG. @Manoj said above (if I understood him correctly) that /e/ has not yet made a decision whether the code will be included or not and that they will take the decision in the nearer future.
The implementation of covid on microg, of course there will be and we all know it.
The only thing we ABSOLUTELY need to be sure of (officially speaking), is that if the function remains uninhabited, then it would not allow any app to invade the private part of our phones, or act as a trojan horse for other tracking functions in the future.
I’d like to point out that the expression “other tracking functions” is not correct. The feature is no tracking function, so there are no other tracking functions.
microG is open source, so you and everybody else who has doubts is invited to examine the code.
And, seriously, how can you ask for a reassurance for the future?
Can you reassure me that my movements will not be tracked by the cell phone connectivity of my phone? (Besides the fact that I expect many governments to log the cells where your phone is logged in already)
although I work in IT, I’m not a programmer or a developer, so I honestly wouldn’t know where and how to interpret microg open-source code… for me it would be like reading a foreign language I’m listening to for the first time.
That’s why I need a reassurance from the microg developer or who has officially chosen to support and implement it in the operating system /e/ (which I TRUST a lot).
Then of course, nobody can give us the certainty about the future, but this project (/e/), was born to give an alternative oriented to privacy and detachment from the “google&co” world, which I personally believe is fundamental!
So yes, I ask, in case the framework on covid should be implemented (and so it will be!), the guarantee that it will not be used for other purposes of tracking user activities!!!
And “the” app is actually a different app for each region (out of 2-3 screens with regions…)! The human race is sometimes extremely wasteful.
As it doesn’t cost anything PROBABLY the best indeed would be if somebody from microG would come and give some statement if it helps some people to feel more confident but trying to get beyond the availability bias I don’t understand at all the whole hoopla around this. First of all this is by far the slightest privacy invading thing from everything offered by microG, you can enumerate and slice each and every feature offered, each and every one is a much bigger privacy loss than this. And second this API by itself does nothing, it needs an app. So it can be exploited in two ways: if the developers bind some sneaky app that does nefarious things or if they somehow leave some security holes that an app can actually use the API without somebody giving the permissions. Neither one can be avoided by some statements from the developers. I swear not to give you a trojan? This is what I’d say if I really wanted to give you one. I promise my app has bullet proof security? We’ve seen such statements and then products fail spectacularly.
So let’s hope for the best…there’s nothing else to be done…
P.S.: most likely you are right, and a statement would not change the reality of the facts, but I am personally convinced that it is always better to say and make things explicit, than to leave them to mere deductions…anyway we hope well…eventually I will always be able to remove the package
Hi @Manoj. Since the v11 Update did not bring along the current MicroG version I would like to renew the question, as to whether a decision concerning the Exposure Notification framework has been reached or when to expect it.
As I work in the public health sector this issue is quite pressing to me - in the sense that I’d have to start searching for a new phone or switch to another OS - so I apologize in advance if I am coming across a bit pushy. Any updates at all are greatly appreciated. And thanks for your work!
