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

[Ttaskmaster]

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

I never said it was about billing - My response was quite clearly addressing and in response to the context of anonymity, as per your own statement that, "This could quite easily be anonymised and just as useful for those purposes".
Funnily enough, substitute any other reason for a customer call, it works the exact same.

Pot calling the kettle a strawman, from the looks of it...

And now you're just throwing out personal attacks because your argument is full of holes, so I'm reading no further. Reported.

You didn't get it. I'm making light of that. That's not personal and you even volunteered that fact.

But go ahead and report me. While you're at it, put me on ignore, tell me you're putting me on ignore and then strop off. That's the typical resport, isn't it?
Still doesn't address the point raised...

Others can see you're inventing a ridiculous argument against things that have never been said.

I said them, so they were most definitely said.
I'm also saying them in response to direct quotes, so you can see they have indeed been said too. You even said some of them yourself.

[g8ina]

OK, enough name calling and person down putting, be nice. I dont want to lock another thread !

[watercooled]

OK I'll have another go at explaining. Leave out the childishness and name-calling though, I've not done it so don't expect it in response. I tend to 'strop off' so as to not fall down the rabbit hole of pointless arguments when someone is blatantly ignoring what I'm saying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a genuine mistake. Once.

So let's go. I specifically related the anonymisation to things other than billing. Here is the whole, exact quote and response, verbatim (formatting not correct as I've just copy and pasted it):

Quote Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster View Post
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.

Fair enough if you misinterpreted what I said but there is no ambiguity in it. Just move on. If not, there's really no point in continuing the debate further as I don't see what's so hard to understand about it.

Talking about all the call centre and customer support stuff makes no sense and is a total strawman if that's the term we're using. I never, not once, said or implied any such thing, that was your inference or plain strawman, you're the only one who knows which.

Right, next one.
I didn't make out I 'didn't get it' at all - I wondered how you'd gone so far off the mark with your response. All-in, that fully addresses the point raised, and not for the first time. Continuing to argue past this is just trolling TBH, so hopefully you can see what was originally said now.

Next.
Regarding the link you posted. I was originally talking about energy metering (I specifically mention power and contactors) but didn't explicitly say energy smart meters. You replied talking about water meters, fair enough, but that wasn't immediately obvious to me either (you mentioned water earlier in the post but not linked to that part of the response). However, many (most?) people (us included) will still be outside of the scope, so the utility company would still have no legal right to force-install a (water) meter of any kind. I do hope the utility companies understand that too.

I think some (energy) utility companies *think* they have the right to do what they want as I mentioned earlier, but the simple fact is they do not. There is no law that says people must have smart meters, and in fact people can request a smart meter is taken out and replaced with a standard one, if they wish. Yes, this may result in being put on a different price plan, depending on the supplier.

I agree, there is without doubt a use for real-time energy (or water) monitoring for things like capacity planning and fault-finding. Whether that's significantly more use on an individual customer level vs the sort of monitoring already done on the grid is another matter. Yes, smart meters (electrical) can also be useful for detecting supply tampering but not so much overload as cutouts have their own supply fuse for protection anyway. My point is many of the benefits are not individual customer-focused which is, as Saracen describes it, disingenuous when that's how they're being sold to people. Again, this varies depending on which utility is being metered; when I think smart meters I tend to think of mainly electrical - with your background you likely do the same with water.

It's a debate whether people 'happily' paid for minutes, data, or if they paid because that was the only option. Plus, that model is largely in the past for multiple reasons, some of which is down to how wholesale networks aren't really billed by units either (besides inter-network calls perhaps).

Provided there's nothing else that needs clearing up r.e. the usefulness (or lack thereof) of smart meters, how about we go back to the OP subject, save derailing the thread permanently?

[Ttaskmaster]

OK I'll have another go at explaining. Leave out the childishness and name-calling though, I've not done it so don't expect it in response.

Please do quote exactly where I have called you names....
As for childish, you have done just that, which I'll address shortly.

So let's go. I specifically related the anonymisation to things other than billing. Here is the whole, exact quote and response, verbatim (formatting not correct as I've just copy and pasted it):

And as that demonstrates, you are still ASSUMING I'm talking specifically about billing, DESPITE me already raising this within the context of anonymised data AND having explained the actual context when you tried to challenge it the first time.

So don't come crying to to me about taking things out of context, when that is exactly what you've doing in order to facilitate your own strawman complaint about it in the first place...

Fair enough if you misinterpreted what I said but there is no ambiguity in it. Just move on. If not, there's really no point in continuing the debate further as I don't see what's so hard to understand about it.

I've misinterpreted nothing. I'm still talking about anonymising data and why it's not always so easy, or even possible.
YOU may have misinterpreted something, perhaps even twice since I already had to explain the first time around... and since you've already had my benefit of the doubt, I must presume that you're deliberately ignoring what I said.

Talking about all the call centre and customer support stuff makes no sense and is a total strawman if that's the term we're using. I never, not once, said or implied any such thing, that was your inference or plain strawman, you're the only one who knows which.

I'm talking about "monitoring, planning, managing, forecasting, controlling" and all the other functions for which it is necessary to specifically identify individual customers, which means anonymising the data is not an option.
You can't be anonymous and expect us to magically know who you are, where you are, what your problems are, and what bits of data are relevant to you out of the piles of it we have going on at any one time.

Right, next one.
I didn't make out I 'didn't get it' at all - I wondered how you'd gone so far off the mark with your response.

You didn't say that, or anything like it. You certainly made no move to illustrate such a point. Just a childishly curt and dismissive assertion that you did not understand my point.

Next.
Regarding the link you posted. I was originally talking about energy metering (I specifically mention power and contactors) but didn't explicitly say energy smart meters.

Originally you didn't specify. You just brought up smartmeters in the context of data and its anonymity, or lack thereof:
"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".

Besides which, water meters have power and use contactors too... So do flow monitors, flood guards, SCADA systems, FLIPs and many other non-manual control devices. That's the point of having them remotely accessible. I also know other utilities use them, too. They're especially useful for tracing misconnections and illegal connections, be that power, phone, gas or water... and in our case also drainage.

But regardless, the principles of anonymising such data from any utility still applies.

You replied talking about water meters, fair enough, but that wasn't immediately obvious to me either (you mentioned water earlier in the post but not linked to that part of the response).

Yeh - Because much of what I've discussed is not specific and unique to the water industry.

However, many (most?) people (us included) will still be outside of the scope, so the utility company would still have no legal right to force-install a (water) meter of any kind. I do hope the utility companies understand that too.

That scope, along with the legal powers, can change very quickly though and I did already specify that I cannot speak for every utility. That we do have such powers sets precedents for other case uses with other utilities. You will likely find such measures if/when the majority of people are using electric vehicles, and when gas is considered to have too high an environmental impact.

Again, this varies depending on which utility is being metered; when I think smart meters I tend to think of mainly electrical - with your background you likely do the same with water.

That's precisely why I tended to avoid being water-specific when generalising about the concepts behind smart metering.

It's a debate whether people 'happily' paid for minutes, data, or if they paid because that was the only option.

It's not been the only option for decades. We've had contracts and PAYG since the late 90s.
I was delighted because, like many other people, I preferred paying for just what little I used, rather than massive monthly charges for X amount of service.
Our BT landline still charges based on minutes used.

[petrefax]

hell no! i don't trust this (or indeed any) government with that level of data on my whereabouts.

at the very, very least it would end up being used to try selling me stuff i don't need.

[watercooled]

And as that demonstrates, you are still ASSUMING I'm talking specifically about billing, DESPITE me already raising this within the context of anonymised data AND having explained the actual context when you tried to challenge it the first time.

I quoted it exactly. Stop trolling, it's obvious now.
Anyone reading the thread can see it now, so I'm happy with that.

I'm still talking about anonymising data and why it's not always so easy, or even possible.

It is. If a company can't anonymise data in this way then they're frankly incompetent. Usage data for the purposes you suggest "monitoring, planning, managing, forecasting, controlling" does not have to be tied to a customer or address to be useful, and there is no reason this cannot be easily anonymised when collected alongside obviously-identifiable billing data. Just because it comes from the same device doesn't mean it can't be treated separately. E.g. the billing system allows people to vote exactly once by identifying individuals, but also provides anonymity for the individual votes.

You can't be anonymous and expect us to magically know who you are, where you are, what your problems are, and what bits of data are relevant to you out of the piles of it we have going on at any one time.

Totally separate, irrelevant and never even mentioned by anyone apart from you.

You didn't say that, or anything like it. You certainly made no move to illustrate such a point. Just a childishly curt and dismissive assertion that you did not understand my point.

I was dismissive because of how far off the mark it was, which I thought would be obvious. Perhaps not.

Originally you didn't specify. You just brought up smartmeters in the context of data and its anonymity, or lack thereof:

I did leave this unintentionally ambiguous which I addressed in previous post. Let's not go round in circles forever, eh?

Besides which, water meters have power and use contactors too...

Really? (Genuine remark, no sarcasm) I've never seen inside a water smart meter but it's not a component I would expect to see given a contactor is a "an electrically-controlled switch used for switching an electrical power circuit." (definition from Wiki) I thought the water equivalent would have been a solenoid valve or similar.

But regardless, the principles of anonymising such data from any utility still applies.

It does, as I addressed above. The law regarding whether the utility has the right to install them is not as you pointed out and I subsequently addressed.

That scope, along with the legal powers, can change very quickly though and I did already specify that I cannot speak for every utility. That we do have such powers sets precedents for other case uses with other utilities. You will likely find such measures if/when the majority of people are using electric vehicles, and when gas is considered to have too high an environmental impact.

Anything here is pure speculation so I'll leave it, especially given how the thread has ended up.

[watercooled]

hell no! i don't trust this (or indeed any) government with that level of data on my whereabouts.

at the very, very least it would end up being used to try selling me stuff i don't need.

You would certainly hope it would not be used for such purposes and I would expect there to be some independent oversight on its usage. I think I read that any data used for this would be destroyed or returned afterwards, but I understand the concerns people have and this is something that needs to be addressed if the Government want people to adopt this system IMO.

The concept Google and Apple are working on is quite interesting and allows it to operate without any personal data collection. The problem is (as it is with any smartphone app), it relies on people actually having a smartphone, switched on, on their person at all times.

[ik9000]

I'd prefer an anonymous Gapple app than anything to do with the gov and their shady C.A. pals, especially when the latter is intrusively identifiable.

[Ttaskmaster]

I quoted it exactly. Stop trolling, it's obvious now.
Anyone reading the thread can see it now, so I'm happy with that.

Sorry, who is trolling, here?
I already said within that very quote you claim to have used, and explained it several times afterward, that it pertains to anonymised data. Billing was simply one example of why that anonimity does not work and I also explained to you that you could use any other element of customer contact and it'd work the same.
You're still being deliberately ignorant of this and using that ignorance to accuse me of trolling?

Damn right it's there for everyone to see....

It is. If a company can't anonymise data in this way then they're frankly incompetent. Usage data for the purposes you suggest "monitoring, planning, managing, forecasting, controlling" does not have to be tied to a customer or address to be useful

There are plenty of situations where data at the individual level is necessary for various aspects of these functions.
Just in my little corner of my own industry (water, in case you need it specifically mentioned within the specific context of this specific argument) we look to tailor our services, works scheduling, diversions, distribution, billing (yes, this time I am specifically including that), maintenance and other operations according to individual customers' circumstances.
We need to know who our vulnerable and priority customers are, for example, or be able to get in touch to warn you of impending works that will impact you, or advise you of possible damage caused by asset failure. We even have BSL trained personnel who we can send out with a works crew if we know one of our affected customers is deaf, for example. If we know several night workers are affected by our regular or planned maintenance, we can try to reschedule those works to avoid disrupting their lives too much.

Obviously personal data can be secured, encrypted even, and kept separate from parts of the business that don't need it, only collected and held when necessary, etc, all under GDPR... but you simply cannot anonymise it outright, otherwise you can't tie it back to the individuals when that does become necessary.
Based on customer demands (and in many cases their very words), they already think we should know everything about them, and some get quite upset when we have to ask them something because we don't know and wouldn't keep that data anyway...!

Totally separate, irrelevant and never even mentioned by anyone apart from you.

Thread about who does and doesn't have Coronavirus, while using smartphones to trace interaction and track spread. That means knowing "who you are, where you are, what your problems are" (in this case Covid-19) and stringing all those data elements together. The part in quotes is exactly what I said above, so extremely relevant to the thread, not separate at all and, strangely enough, precisely why I did mention it.

I was dismissive because of how far off the mark it was, which I thought would be obvious. Perhaps not.

You may have thought that, but you didn't say anything like it. You still haven't expanded on that, either.
I'd ask for an actual explanation as to why you think that, but presume that if you had any such intention you'd have done so already.

I did leave this unintentionally ambiguous which I addressed in previous post. Let's not go round in circles forever, eh?

Don't have a crack at me for something you yourself have done, then...

Really? (Genuine remark, no sarcasm) I've never seen inside a water smart meter but it's not a component I would expect to see given a contactor is a "an electrically-controlled switch used for switching an electrical power circuit." (definition from Wiki) I thought the water equivalent would have been a solenoid valve or similar.

A valve is a valve, though the method of control differs.

But yeah, they can do. Depends on maaaaaaaaaaaaaaany factors, including whether the meter is designed with remote shut-off features or not.
For example, if you have a FLIP or private pumping station serving your property, a little solenoid valve may not cut it and you'd need something bigger. Same for shared connections (block of flats or similar buildings) with larger diameter supply feeds, or if you have many solenoids governed by one contactor. Industrial properties (of which we serve a great many) will often have the bigger kit, both on water supply and the sewage - Trade Effluent are high risk customers with very high flows and volumes, so they tend to have a lot of monitoring and metering, especially to keep track of their discharge volumes (because it's billable and fineable, aside from anything else) and make sure they're not sending exceeding permitted flows of toxic gack down the pipes and into the nice clean rivers.

Of course it also depends on things like space restrictions, available power supply (if any), any standards for what models of meter we have to use, and so on. Some places have electric motors to operate the very large and heavy duty flow controls, and you may want a contactor on that to avoid arcing. Other places won't have any of that.

Anything here is pure speculation so I'll leave it, especially given how the thread has ended up.

We got that legal right based on certain circumstances. Those, or very similar, circumstances could quite easily occur with other utilities or suppliers of finite resources, resulting in them being granted the same legal entitlement that we have.

You may not be old enough to remember electricity rationing in the 1970s, but while it's less likely today, it is still a possibility. We had a big one in August just last year, in fact.
Obviously there are measures in place to help prevent blackouts and brownouts from happening, but they're not cheap and we see this reflected in bills (yes, billing again). One such measure is the electricity Triads, but that's mostly voluntary. It could be deemed necessary to actually enforce measures like this. Smartmeters can help with more accurate billing (yes, again) among other things, but also bring levels of control that may alleviate the need for the expensive measures. That would be one major reason (technically two) for electricity companies getting the same legal right to install smartmetering, assuming the government themselves didn't command it first.
Same for phone lines - People complain that their über-fast broadband is still slow because so many others are online at the same time - That's now an area of high stress and thus you have the precedent to potentially introduce smartmetering of some kind. It may not seem very likely, but I'd not be surprised... It wasn't so long ago they basically wanted a 'Porn ID' card, and now they're looking at smartphone-tracking the population.

[Dareos]

how is the app updated to state that someone has covid 19?

does the user self identify on the app or does it have to be remotely updated by an NHS consultant?

If it the former, then i can see a huge issue where someone flags themselves as positive "for a laugh" and then goes for a jaunt coming into contact with as many people as possible. Thats just going to cause panic and mayhem.

If its by a consultant, then privacy becomes a major factor

[Saracen999]

As I understand it, a user becoming aware of symptoms notifies the app, which then warns recent 'signiticant proximity' contacts ...i.e. a defined 'closeness' for a defined minimum duration. No direct NHS staff involved in that, because to do so would be a resource magnet, and would slow everything down hugely.

[Dareos]

i suppose there will be statistical analysis of how many lying toerags, pranksters and hypochondriacs are using the app then?

[Jonj1611]

how is the app updated to state that someone has covid 19?

does the user self identify on the app or does it have to be remotely updated by an NHS consultant?

If it the former, then i can see a huge issue where someone flags themselves as positive "for a laugh" and then goes for a jaunt coming into contact with as many people as possible. Thats just going to cause panic and mayhem.

If its by a consultant, then privacy becomes a major factor

I agree, you can just imagine someone walking through a busy park, shops, bus queue then saying they have it. Recipe for disaster or someone setting it off on their friends phone for a laugh.

[Ttaskmaster]

As I understand it, a user becoming aware of symptoms notifies the app, which then warns recent 'signiticant proximity' contacts ...i.e. a defined 'closeness' for a defined minimum duration. No direct NHS staff involved in that, because to do so would be a resource magnet, and would slow everything down hugely.

So a complete 'self-governed' spit-shower of self-identifiers, hypochondiracs and bored twelve-year-olds just messing the whole thing around?
No-one who has an ounce of sense would input their data into that in the first place, so it sounds like the Smartmeterphobics will be perfectly safe!

[ik9000]

alright alright calm down calm down

[Jonj1611]

I read they would need 80% of people to sign up for it. They reckon they will get the numbers because of the "love for the nhs". Personally I think that figure is a bit optimistic. Mainly for the amount of people required and for the people that think, hmm I won't bother because someone else has probably downloaded it so I don't need to.