And I think having this power is OK - nobody should be forced to help the government implement something unethical. There may be scenarios where this goes horribly wrong, but the contact tracing framework is a case where it went perfectly right.
Yes, the QR-checkin feature is something where an exception could make sense, but given what it would pave the way for, I'm glad they keep the rules strict.
Nobody is forced to install the app at all (at least in the UK's case).
And if they do, they're not forced to share their location anyway.
On the other hand, anyone who has an Android phone is forced to share tons of data with Google. And the cost of not having one is much higher than the cost of not having the government's app.
Unfortunately, that's not quite right. Citing the latest rules:
> The rules on what you need to do when a group enters your venue have changed. You must ask every customer or visitor to scan the NHS QR code using their NHS COVID-19 app, or provide their name and contact details, not just a lead member of the group. [0]
[0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/maintaining-records-of-staff-cus...
Delving into the rules, it appears this applies to all sit-in venues, while takeaway customers are exempt. A paper-based system should be available, if you trust the business to handle your data responsibly (or forge fake data if not).
This morning at a cafe I was asked to scan the QR code "or we can't serve you" for a takeaway order. Clearly some misunderstanding, and I didn't press about a paper-based list as I hadn't read the details myself. Hopefully it's an isolated incident, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some simplified comms (/FUD) about "just get customers to scan the code".
There are 2 alternatives to installing the app:
- providing your details; or - not entering the venue.
Seems correct that nobody is forced to install the app.
Isn't it interesting that it takes an international mega-corporation to take a more realistic and principled approach to user privacy than a democratic government.
This is not true at all - as the researcher from Trinity College found out a bit of time ago, Apple collects people location data even if they're not logged into the Apple account: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/android-sends-20x-mo...
It's very clearly marked as being collected, so I'm not sure why this myth of Apple not collecting data is being perpetuated. It's seriously misleading actual iOS users about their privacy.
Should I remind the fanboys again that Apple gives China direct access to users data? Apple does not have principles but PR people with spreadsheets, you as an user could use your brain and not install a government app or don't give it permissions but if you want the freedom to delegate your thinking to a for profit company you don't have to demand the others give up their freedom too (I don't need X so you should not have it either )
But you can do whatever you want as far as it’s possible by the product that you purchased. If you buy a Gameboy you wouldn’t sue Nintendo for not supporting you to play Playstation games on it, unless you’re a troll. Same thing for Apple products. Do with your iPhone what you want, but if you don’t like the Apple software on it then return your device or try to hack it or just buy another product which better meets your needs.
So when someone in EU asks for Apple to open up the US people should not trigger as much since they can keep their locked versions of the phones, nobody would force them to buy the unlocked EU version. Similar when banks were forced to reduce commissions on stuff, or mobile networks were forced to reduce big charges in EU the companies could ahve left, but the banks and companies are still here and not US citizen was directly harmed (maybe some will still cry that there are places where big money is not enough )
But the electorate didn’t ask the government to collect location data on them, quite the opposite, so everything that you just said is literally fantasy cuckoo land argumentation. The reality is that people don’t want to be spied in by the government and people don’t want Apple to give the government that access and Apple is acting in the interest of everyone except a few people in parliament.
The point is, the UK government made a technical error, we cannot extrapolate a democratic deficit or malice or anything like that from the information we have from this event.
There seems to be a bit of a "We're the government, so they'll have to do what we ask/tell" going on here I suspect. Probably coupled with incompetent IT project management that didn't bother to worry about the terms and conditions they signed up to, because that was too hard.
The UK Government have made a pig's ear of pretty much the whole of their Covid response precisely because they refuse to engage with anyone who might actually know what they're doing. Everything's been outsourced at great expense to private companies operating on a wing and a prayer basis. Millions of pounds and many weeks' of time early on in the pandemic was wasted building a bespoke app that anyone with any experience told them wouldn't work. They finally were forced into an embarrassing climbdown where they had to accept the Google/Apple solution that they'd previously dismissed as not good enough.
The only thing they've done well is the vaccine programme because they actually let the National Health Service get on with it instead of letting some big outsourcing company flounder about expensively.
That's the case (they are the government, they are in control, not Apple or Google), and certainly it should have been the case considering the situation. But that would have required the government to show some backbone and to use the power at its disposal. Instead it seems that the issue has been politically controversial so that the government decided not to act decisively on track and trace apps overall.
This is continuing with the controversy over "vaccine passports".
Actually the scariest about Google / Apple collecting your data is ironically when a government entity may investigate you and request data from these companies
They even acknowledge they made a mistake in the initial contract.
What’s the issue here?
I'm not necessarily saying that's wrong or right. You could argue they're defending the user's rights against the tyranny of the British government. Or you could say they're constraining the user's and their democratically elected government's rights to voluntarily use data to help end a pandemic, while at the same time profiting off it themselves.