So... NHS Contact Tracing App

[LeMarchand]

For eating out, it's not legally required, but the establishment you visit is required to keep details for track and trace. Most of them will have an alternative, as they've had to do that since they re-opened.

 

My take on the official app is that they're more likely to have decent privacy controls than random paper systems in restaurants and the other apps I've used might have decent controls, but I definitely don't have time to check when I arrive at the restaurant.

 

My posts on here will show I'm quite privacy conscious and sceptical of giving away more data than necessary, but I think the situation has changed. My hope is that once this crisis is over, the genie can be put back in the bottle...

 

There are already people saying that they've been refused entry for not using the app; how true this is may be up for debate.

 

Genies don't have a good track record for getting back into bottles...

[TechMonkey]

But what is the Genie here? Once it has all died down, we uninstall the app. If they try and make it law to have the app then that is what we oppose. I can't see this being any use a tracking method as if they say I was with such and such a person so accused of something, any lawyer should be able to kill that while asleep as it can't determine if you were with that person or just in the same room, which are very different prospects.

[jthompson]

Having a QR code available to scan presumably doesn't alter a business's obligation to take contact details of customers. A QR scan is unverifiable, after all. It's there for the customer's own benefit, not for the business. It's a separate and additional, opt-in layer of contact tracing.

 

Are you able to scan out of a venue? It would be interesting to know what the criteria are for contact matching based on venue QR scans. Would it advise you to self-isolate on a venue match, or just recommend getting a test?

[mavhc]

It does let you opt out, scan here or fill in this form.

 

Are you able to fill in a form when you leave?

 

Not like we're going to have fewer pandemics in the future while we constantly encroach into new areas of the planet while also travelling widely.

 

Ban planes.

[Rob_D]

But what is the Genie here? Once it has all died down, we uninstall the app. If they try and make it law to have the app then that is what we oppose. I can't see this being any use a tracking method as if they say I was with such and such a person so accused of something, any lawyer should be able to kill that while asleep as it can't determine if you were with that person or just in the same room, which are very different prospects.

 

The "genie" as I see it is the idea that people could be turned away or bared from entry from a venue for not having the app. If some places are doing it (AFAIK this is unconfirmed) and they're not loosing business or being lambasted on social media for it, then it's only time before more and more places impose the same restrictions.

 

As for the "we can always uninstall it later" argument. I remember reading somewhere a while back that contact tracing would be baked into future android and iOS versions. I can't remember/find where I read it so this is purely anecdotal.

And as for guilt by proxy, isn't that basically joint enterprise?

[TechMonkey]

People get turned away for not having the right footwear and many other mundane reasons. If that is the establishment rules that is the rules, nothing new or escalatory there. People will vote with their feet.

 

All I can find is a push to have contact tracing on by default, but you would still have the option to turn it off. As far as I am aware the contact tracing framework is baked in, the app is just instigating it. Again, if you don't like it, turn bluetooth off and uninstall the app.

 

But they would have to prove you were conspiring with them. Imagine there was a 6 person EduMeet and they happened to sit on the table next to the local Mafia chapter. Unless they had footage of the EduMeet interacting substantially with the Mafia then all the app would tell you was that they were within 2 meters for more than 15 minutes. If they had footage then the tracking app data is trumped anyway.

[mavhc]

it's in the OS, but they'll only let people use it during a pandemic. Google is more powerful than governments after all, more people use facebook than live in any one country.

 

Who are these people going to venues though? Madness

[TechMonkey]

it's in the OS, but they'll only let people use it during a pandemic. Google is more powerful than governments after all, more people use facebook than live in any one country.

 

Who are these people going to venues though? Madness

 

Problem is, "venue" is a catch all term. The venue I was trying to check into is a Climbing wall. I can social distance there, and it is pretty solitary halfway up the wall! Venue does conjure up images of packed gigs and concerts, but they are using it in a very loose term.

[jmak]

But what is the Genie here? Once it has all died down, we uninstall the app. If they try and make it law to have the app then that is what we oppose. I can't see this being any use a tracking method as if they say I was with such and such a person so accused of something, any lawyer should be able to kill that while asleep as it can't determine if you were with that person or just in the same room, which are very different prospects.

I remember in January one of my first reactions to hearing about lockdown in China due to Covid-19 was "Can you imagine if that came here and they asked European people to lockdown? The Chinese government is lucky it's a totalitarian state and people are used to complying."

 

By the beginning of March I was writing to my MP and telling anyone who'd listen that we needed to lockdown immediately - I'd read a lot about how the disease was getting out of control in other countries and thought a full lockdown early on would have the least long-term impact.

 

I don't think there's an alternative to trying to track who has been in contact with who in order to limit spread of the virus. I think using the app (even though it's government controlled) is probably one of the least intrusive ways to achieve it. But I hope that we can get to a point where it's not necessary and at that point the public isn't so accustomed to bring tracked that they forget to object.

 

Ironically, before Covid, there was lots of covert tracking using facial recognition CCTV. Mask wearing has blown that out of the water...

[jthompson]

People get turned away for not having the right footwear and many other mundane reasons. If that is the establishment rules that is the rules, nothing new or escalatory there. People will vote with their feet.

 

All I can find is a push to have contact tracing on by default, but you would still have the option to turn it off. As far as I am aware the contact tracing framework is baked in, the app is just instigating it. Again, if you don't like it, turn bluetooth off and uninstall the app.

 

But they would have to prove you were conspiring with them. Imagine there was a 6 person EduMeet and they happened to sit on the table next to the local Mafia chapter. Unless they had footage of the EduMeet interacting substantially with the Mafia then all the app would tell you was that they were within 2 meters for more than 15 minutes. If they had footage then the tracking app data is trumped anyway.

 

Bluetooth... coming to a police procedural drama near you.

[Rob_D]

Remember, back in the day when walking into a shop wearing a mask would freak everybody out.

[smurfomatic]

Remember, back in the day when walking into a shop wearing a mask would freak everybody out.

 

Or a bank...

[Andrew_C]

Or a bank...

Finding a bank with an actual branch to walk into would freak ME out.

[StevieM]

Remember, back in the day when walking into a shop wearing a mask would freak everybody out.

Not a political post!

 

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that someone who once described people who wore face coverings as 'looking like letter boxes and bank robbers' has now legislated that everyone must wear one?

 

EDIT: I've just realised that this is the Tracing App thread, not the general Coronavirus thread, so I'll instruct myself to go -

Edited September 29, 2020 by StevieM

[paulkerton]

Remember, back in the day when walking into a shop wearing a mask would freak everybody out.

I still find it uncomfortable walking into a shop and masking up.

And then I find myself wanting to have that conversation with the staff in the shop too, but I don't want to freak them out when I say it!

[Achandler]

Having spent 3 days in the North East, going from tourist locations, places for breakfast and an evening meal very day. The rule was pretty simple, either everyone in the party scanned the QR code or you had to give details for a paper register, or whatever method they were using.

 

Most places had a QR code on the table, laminated and they took it away to clean when they took the menu about. But they were encouraging App usage over the paper register for places, it is probably easier for them as well.

 

Google et al track where you go anyway, so scanning a QR code seemed to make no difference to me. The biggest issue I had was the camera on my phone isn't the best, especially in the dark so I often couldn't scan the outdoor QR codes for places without additional lighting, and the app can't turn the torch on your phone on. This mainly affected none pubs etc, as they had them inside and on the tables as discussed.

 

I was however in a fairly rural location, so the pubs were not full, so everything was very smooth, they weren't full of drunk people either, I imagine in a city centre it is a little bit more difficult to maintain it in such a smooth way.

[jthompson]

I'm surprised that venues are not still required to take contact details. The QR code isn't really an equivalent thing.

[mavhc]

I'm surprised that venues are not still required to take contact details. The QR code isn't really an equivalent thing.

 

You'll learn about a place that was infected way faster via the App than having to decipher people's handwriting, that's after you get a copy of the scrap of paper they were written on.

 

Then you watch out for symptoms.

 

People with the app are likely sharing bluetooth keys, so people they're in contact with will also get notified if they get a test and it's positive.

[jthompson]

The venue has no way of verifying that its customers are actually clocking that QR, though, and TPTB are going to struggle to identify a venue that's the source of an outbreak if the venue isn't taking anyone's contact details.

[mavhc]

Why? If someone tests positive they get contacted, and then the places they've visited are asked for. Doesn't matter whether they used a qr code or filled in a form.

 

Then that place is declared unsafe, and a message sent to all app users that that place is unsafe. If the user's scanned the qr code they're notified.

 

Also the phone the place, ask for the contact list, and then phone all those people.

[Achandler]

The places I visited, were basically making you scan the QR code in front of them or taking your details. I agree that is it only a bit of the problem.

 

If someone who doesn't QR scan get COVID-19, then they inform the venue and NHS Track and Trace, then NHS Track and Trace presumably can send the message out that the venue had an infectious person there. I assume with the QR code way, Track and Trace can see where I have been as I scanned in, so they can now inform those venues that I had it, instead of me having to remember the name of that place I go lunch 3 days ago etc.

[mavhc]

They can't, as the QR codes don't leave your phone

[Achandler]

Would it generate an alert if I was to put in a positive test result? If not then it seems entirely pointless scanning anything.

[jthompson]

I'm assuming that two phones that scan the same location QR on the same day are treated by the app as contacts, so a positive test by one would notify (without mentioning any particular place or time) everyone else who also scanned that location on the same day. Lots of false positives, maybe? Track & Trace won't 'see' any of that, they'd continue to be reliant on phoning up people with positive tests and having them say where they've been in order to identify a potential outbreak source.

[jmak]

From my reading of the privacy notice:

 

You scan QR code of venue which is stored on your phone.

 

QR code of venue is held centrally (it's not personal data).

 

All venues identified as possible sources are marked and their identifier is shared with all phones with the app installed and your phone checks the list of places with the records on your phone of where you've been.

 

And for the other way around:

 

You register a positive test result in your app. The app then sends all of the data from all of the venues you've visited (and the other phones detected) and uploads it to the central database. You're not identified because the identifier is anonymised by the use of the daily code.

 

 

The only bit that I can see that's being missed is that the venue had no way to prove that they've collected the data from everyone who visited.

 

Also, if the proximity party of the app hadn't picked up that you were close to the person who treated positive, how much risk are you actually at? I know I don't need a test unless I have symptoms, but is checking in to a venue at some point during the same day as someone who tested positive enough of a reason for me to self isolate?