@ScottMorrisonMP The architecture of TraceTogether, which sends all contacts to central infra, IS NOT the same as the Google/Apple beacon approach, which only sends "I'm infected" notifications to central infra. You need to obtain better technology advice.
I don't 100% support the Google/Apple approach BUT it is definitely better than TraceTogether. TraceTogether arbitrarily sends all contacts to central server and then correlation to infected cases is done centrally.
Google/Apple approach stores BLE contacts on-device, on local storage, and then receives notifications that a specific BLE has a "Verified Infected" marker which it then checks via it's internal storage. Essentially the only centralised information is verified infected cases.
The "upside" of the TraceTogether technology is the government can quantify the total exposure count. The Google/Apple approach doesn't let the total exposure count because BLE contacts aren't uploaded en masse.
If you TRULY are focused on participation consent, you should have no problem with individuals CHOOSING to request notifications of infections from their phone vendor.
At a bare *minimum* you should participate in the beacon approach proposed by Google/Apple so that users can CHOOSE what option they wish to adopt. Given the vast amounts of collection you are doing within TraceTogether issuing "Confirmed Infected" beacons is a minor addition.
@threadreaderapp unroll
I reiterate once again that a zero knowledge proof system is superior to both TraceTogether and Apple/Google Beacon.
