I learned during a recent helmet football telecast that the NFL was using Kinexon's technology as part of its COVID-19 contact tracing protocols. I browsed this company's website, and it seems like a brilliant product - have a look for yourself, reader. As I understand it, the device buzzes when you wander within six feet of another device, and in the event of an outbreak contact tracers use the stored location data to notify anyone who came within infection range of any sick person.
As I read more about Kinexon, I wondered about their future, at least in the context of this one product line. Surely, everything they advertise is possible with any smart device; I can't imagine the fierce competition there must be in this field. The winner will need to not just capture market share, it will almost certainly need the whole market - there's no point to this device unless everyone is using it. In other words, it's almost perfectly designed for capitalism, which means my conclusion here runs counter to many of my recent rants - the best firm for this technology is a monopolist, and we should hope the market gets there ASAP.
One interesting feature about this product is that although the basic idea of optimizing contact tracing should have universal approval, the minority who disagree will have outsized influence on the specifics of the implementation. It's a lot like something I highlighted about Nassim Nicholas Taleb's insight into the power of intolerant minorities, which I borrowed for an example last year. In the case of contact tracing and Kinexon, I suspect there will be a large enough minority who approve of this idea yet remain against having it on their phones; if such a group exists, it bodes well for Kinexon, or any company that produces a separate wearable device, because the majority will have little choice but to follow the minority. Some readers might be wondering at this point - why is this an important distinction? Isn't software just software? Who cares how it gets to me? The problem is that the urgency of the pandemic is perhaps obscuring the invasiveness of this technology; those in the minority are keeping it in mind.
The situation I outlined above reminds me of a seeming contradiction that I've thought about for the past few years - why do folks who seem to care about privacy also seem willing to hand over all their personal data to internet companies? I think the crux of the question isn't about the data, or even privacy - I think the issue is trust. Some people still trust internet companies enough to hand them their personal data; others suspect Alexa is always listening. The intolerant minority who will refuse to download a contact tracing app onto their phones are in the latter group - we know our data has reached every corner of the globe, often without our consent, and we know it can and will be used against us in the pursuit of profit; the companies in charge often pretend this isn't their fault, even as it benefits their stock price, which further erodes trust.
The contact tracing process - like that of privacy - is at its core a question of trust. A new, separate product that collects and uses data for the purpose of contact tracing - and solely for that purpose - seems much more trustworthy than the smart phones asking for an eleventh second chance. If I'm already on edge about how companies are using my data, I'm only going to divulge it to a confidant who never gossips, or at least has never gossiped before; if I were in the marketing department, this is the only selling point I would use for the product - what happens on Kinexon stays on Kinexon.
