NHS "contact-tracing" app .... would you?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah I had noticed the post and considered that.

The problem is if Apple and Google are now are so concerned,they might not allow the app to actually run on their platform,it is telling me there is definitely some problems with it. It has already failed at the first hurdle,due to the way the data is stored.

Also looking at your last post,Palantir Technologies is a big data company,so those kind of analytics you are worried about,they specialise in. There are lots of concerns about the scope of what it is doing,and its data security:
https://www.wired.com/story/how-pete...into-policing/

It sort of reminds me a bit of OCP from the Robocop series! They are already been contracted with very sensitive medical data,but because of the nature of their tools,and their extensive scope,I think it won't be that hard for them to put two and two together. They have access to intelligence data,medical data,etc and one has to ask where all of this will be stored and whether they will be stringent enough in making sure the data is safe. They also have some financial issues too,which does not bode well IMHO.

[Ttaskmaster]

I have some sympathy with that, Ttask. In my case, however, I'd point out I've been very, very careful about giving any data out.

And that's where people like your good self might lose out, as you'd not get traced and thus not be notified early that you'd (potentially) caught the virus from being in contact with, say, me... I don't know if time is a factor in diagnosis and treatment with this, but for the purposes of this thread I'll assume it is. It usually is in life-threatening diseases.
As it stands, I'd have to be interviewed and, while feeling like death warmed up, reliably recall every single place I went and every person I was near over the past, what, 7-14 days? I'm a keyworker who gets to potentially be around thousands of members of public, and in close proximity to a good couple hundred works crew in similar roles... It'd take weeks to trace all them!

But with the app, you could track all that and get in touch with potential recipients... maybe even early enough to make the difference.

Note that I haven't actually spoken in favour of such a thing... But I do see other very valid uses for this (I won't post the link again, but it's pretty pressing) and I do think that if the government really wanted to they could just force companies to surrender the data, as it's in the direct interests of protecting the lives of The People. No need to implement expensive apps to replicate what, for the most part, already exists.

An example - knowing what time houses are empty during the day would be very useful to certain criminals, and that's part of the issue with things like smart meters collecting such data unnecessarily. I don't trust unknown entities to keep such data safe, because they frequently don't as we see time and time again in data leaks.

You can do that anyway even without smartmeters. Companies will sell their shopping site data, from which you can glean names & addresses, and they obviously track your IP because they send you targeted ads, so they'll know you shopped from work not home (the date-time stamp is also a big clue).
However, criminals looking to burgle your house will still physically case the neighbourhood, as it's not just your house they're interested in, but the surrounding ones with potential witnesses, too.

[watercooled]

You can do that anyway even without smartmeters. Companies will sell their shopping site data, from which you can glean names & addresses, and they obviously track your IP because they send you targeted ads, so they'll know you shopped from work not home (the date-time stamp is also a big clue).
However, criminals looking to burgle your house will still physically case the neighbourhood, as it's not just your house they're interested in, but the surrounding ones with potential witnesses, too.

Having such data in one place, and without having to make judgements based on inherently ephemeral details like IP address, is far more useful.

Just for further explanation, IP address does not prove whether someone is home or not. Not least because cellular data is perfectly usable at home. And outside of ISPs, they're a very rough guide to location at best, and practically useless for cellular IPs.

The thing about 'potential witnesses' is what makes centralised storage of such information e.g. from smart metering particularly sensitive.

It's not some crazy anti-smart-meter conspiracy. I just think that there needs to be a sensible reason for divulging data, and smart meters aren't half as magic as they're made out to be (I already know how much power appliances use so there's really no use at all for me). Plus they contain a contactor enabling them to remotely disconnect supplies - sounds like an interesting exploit potential, no?

[matts-uk]

It's not some crazy anti-smart-meter conspiracy. I just think that there needs to be a sensible reason for divulging data,

Had the Gov taken data ownership seriously in the 00s, before the genie was torn kicking and screaming from the bottle, I might be a little more trusting. They didn't. They allowed the tech industry to rape and pillage as they pleased those who knew no betterr, without a thought for who actually owns the data (you and me).

Regrettably Gov agencies have an abysmal record when it comes to IT projects and industrial scale data leaks. Here they are, inviting a shady partner with links to Cambridge Analytica. It is not inspiring me with confidence. Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

Maybe if they gave the tracking app to a university consortium I might be more trusting.

[Phage]

I refer you to "The permanent expediency"

[Galant]

At first I thought I'd be open to this, assuming it could be shown to be done well, be of good use, and was strictly limited. Right now, though, I'm beginning to wonder if it's necessary. I'm concerned about how draconian a lot of this has been, and I'm watching to see if the government(s) will relinquish this power/reset itself after this, or whether this sort of control will be the new normal. At the risk of joining the tin-foil hat club I'm becoming skeptical of the government's approach to all this.

[Ttaskmaster]

I already know how much power appliances use so there's really no use at all for me). Plus they contain a contactor enabling them to remotely disconnect supplies - sounds like an interesting exploit potential, no?

They're not meant to be useful for you. They enable far better operation for the utilities companies, in terms of monitoring, planning, managing, forecasting, controlling, etc... and yes, if you don't pay your bill they can just cut you off. Difference is, they can do it remotely and save having to send a crew out to your local control point.

But still, even without half that data, the stuff on you (you, the average person) that is already out there is more than enough for people to use against you if they really wanted.

[Saracen999]

They're not meant to be useful for you. ....

Which makes the way they're "sold" to consumers ..... disingenuous. That's when they're not outright lying, like telling me my "old" meter needs to be replaced. My "old" meter had been fitted less than 12 months earlier.

[watercooled]

They're not meant to be useful for you.

Precisely.

They enable far better operation for the utilities companies, in terms of monitoring, planning, managing, forecasting, controlling, etc...

This could quite easily be anonymised and just as useful for those purposes.

and yes, if you don't pay your bill they can just cut you off. Difference is, they can do it remotely and save having to send a crew out to your local control point.

The difference is a human crew can't be theoretically exploited to maliciously disconnect many supplies at the same time, or due to computer/billing errors.

But still, even without half that data, the stuff on you (you, the average person) that is already out there is more than enough for people to use against you if they really wanted.

The old argument confusing 'it's not that bad' with 'it's a good thing'. Needlessly pooling more data, regardless of whether it may or may not already exist in a similarly centralised form elsewhere, is not a sensible justification.

Which makes the way they're "sold" to consumers ..... disingenuous. That's when they're not outright lying, like telling me my "old" meter needs to be replaced. My "old" meter had been fitted less than 12 months earlier.

Exactly. Many companies are effectively bullying and scaring customers, some of whom are vulnerable, into accepting an 'upgrade' they may not want or need. We signed up for a plan which contained no mention of smart meters anywhere in contract, the T&C's we were provided with, or in any correspondence. It didn't stop them from borderline harassing us to install a smart meter and telling us we 'agreed to have one installed' when we signed the contract. After complaining about it multiple times, then ignoring it when they continued regardless, we ended up finding a better deal with a company that doesn't even offer smart meters. Happy days!

Some companies are using very sly wording to imply a smart meter legally must be installed, which is rubbish. Certain utility companies are obliged to offer them, but there is NO legal requirement for customers to accept them. Of course it may mean ending up on a different tariff but that's another matter.

[Jonj1611]

Interesting article :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52353720

[Ttaskmaster]

Which makes the way they're "sold" to consumers ..... disingenuous. That's when they're not outright lying, like telling me my "old" meter needs to be replaced. My "old" meter had been fitted less than 12 months earlier.

Your "old" one might well have been installed less than a year ago... but it's now obsolete tech and does not interface with the new software and the new OS we've had to start using, in order to meet industry standards. We've also now (finally) gotten these new meters which we have to use, so we have to rip your old one out and put these new ones in, because the regulator decided the older ones don't comply.

Disingenuous... not really. It will bring benefits to some customers.
Mainly those on rates and with inaccurate billing details, who are paying too much, or who have infrastructure problems. But there will also be those with similar oddities, who now have to deal with the fact that they must pay for everything they use, rather than relying on the rates system to subsidise their wastage.
But because it will not benefit absolutely every man, woman and child equally, it might appear disingenuous if the benefits are not immediately apparent to you.

This could quite easily be anonymised and just as useful for those purposes.

"You paid too much for your water?
Well, I'd ask for your name and address, but I can't check that against the list of meter readings because they're all anonymous. Sorry. Bill stands".

Strange that, with all this nice, securely anonymised data that people wanted, they now complain that the first 10-15 minutes of their phonecall is giving out their name and address and establishing their identity for security purposes....!!!

The difference is a human crew can't be theoretically exploited to maliciously disconnect many supplies at the same time, or due to computer/billing errors.

Funny... There have been plenty of incorrectly disconnected customers throughout the years. Lots of complaints about it, too.
If it can happen in error, it can happen in malice.
That was before we got computers to do the billing, as well...

The old argument confusing 'it's not that bad' with 'it's a good thing'. Needlessly pooling more data, regardless of whether it may or may not already exist in a similarly centralised form elsewhere, is not a sensible justification.

OK, if you won't supply it for free we'll have to buy the data in from the existing sources and add the cost to your bill, then.... Enjoy!!

Exactly. Many companies are effectively bullying and scaring customers, some of whom are vulnerable, into accepting an 'upgrade' they may not want or need. We signed up for a plan which contained no mention of smart meters anywhere in contract, the T&C's we were provided with, or in any correspondence. It didn't stop them from borderline harassing us to install a smart meter and telling us we 'agreed to have one installed' when we signed the contract. After complaining about it multiple times, then ignoring it when they continued regardless, we ended up finding a better deal with a company that doesn't even offer smart meters. Happy days!

I can't speak for every utilities company, but there should be no need for 'bullying', as we have the legal right to install one even without your consent, if we feel it is necessary!

[watercooled]

"You paid too much for your water?
Well, I'd ask for your name and address, but I can't check that against the list of meter readings because they're all anonymous. Sorry. Bill stands".

Maybe don't quote things out of context, eh?

Strange that, with all this nice, securely anonymised data that people wanted, they now complain that the first 10-15 minutes of their phonecall is giving out their name and address and establishing their identity for security purposes....!!!

What are you on about?

OK, if you won't supply it for free we'll have to buy the data in from the existing sources and add the cost to your bill, then.... Enjoy!!

Weird.

I can't speak for every utilities company, but there should be no need for 'bullying', as we have the legal right to install one even without your consent, if we feel it is necessary!

No, you do not.

[Saracen999]

.....

I can't speak for every utilities company, but there should be no need for 'bullying', as we have the legal right to install one even without your consent, if we feel it is necessary!

Water, yes. Though users can (or could, last time I looked) require the data collection to be turned down to one per month.

But gas/elec can't force them. Not until legispation changes.

[Ttaskmaster]

Maybe don't quote things out of context, eh?

You what? I quoted your entire response to that. No loss of context at all.
The point remains that you cannot anonymise things that pertain to specifically identified persons, especially when they must identify themselves and have that identity confirmed against your records.

What are you on about?

For those of you in the cheap seats - You're so concerned about not giving out personal data and being anonymous, yet in order to resolve your problems you must give out that personal data and surrender your anonymity, so we know who you are and where to go to fix your problems.
Again, you cannot anonymise it when the crux of it is addressing specific individuals' matters.

Think about it - You want me to come fix your internet, but won't tell me your name or where you live... How's that gonna work? Or you want me to refund you for an overpayment, but won't give me access to your account data to check and verify it?
Records need your personal data and usage history to confirm that it was you, using X amount over Y time, paid using your account.

Weird.

That's how the market works. In fact, that's probably how the market was created, too.

No, you do not.

Yeah, we do - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-7342/

Though users can (or could, last time I looked) require the data collection to be turned down to one per month.

I cannot imagine why they'd get to choose such a thing, or how such infrequent data collection could be of any use.
The whole point of smart metering is an almost real-time report on what's going on in the infrastructure network. For us, that means local and mains leakages, bursts, diversion planning, dynamic capacity modelling, illegal connections, and stuff like that. I guess the Leccy look for surges, high drain and similar issues.
But that means far more frequent monitoring than once a month... more like every hour.

Thing is, as resources become stretched, legislation will be brought in for the others. People happily paid telephone bills by usage per minute and later data per MB or GB, so between that and water I can see plenty of precedents.

[watercooled]

You what? I quoted your entire response to that. No loss of context at all.
The point remains that you cannot anonymise things that pertain to specifically identified persons, especially when they must identify themselves and have that identity confirmed against your records.

Maybe try actually reading what I said in the context of what you said. It has absolutely nothing to do with billing.

For those of you in the cheap seats

And now you're just throwing out personal attacks because your argument is full of holes, so I'm reading no further. Reported. Others can see you're inventing a ridiculous argument against things that have never been said.

[ik9000]

people people keep the debate sane. We're all tetchy in this lockdown BS. It's the internet, we all have our opinions. No-one will ever persuade everyone to agree with them 100% on anything nevermind everything. Enjoy the debate, respect the differences of opinion and by all means do debate - but if it's getting under the skin stop, walk away, do whatever to vent off and come back to it in a few days or whatever. We're all on here to pass the time and enjoy a community - so choose to enjoy it and if each of us do our bit to keep it civil we'll all learn something. Now, everyone get your drink of choice, take 5 and we'll reconvene for a group hug when we're all at the blurry slurry "you're my best mate" stage ok?