Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

1…165166168170171…331

Comments

  • #5012
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

    You may be able to read through the code and be satisfied but the vast majority of people will not. Therefore they need to trust the government.

    Yet the government have given them no reason to trust them.

    Gove, until a few months ago, didn't even think Johnson was cut out to be PM, stabbed him in the back, but know we are all supposed to believe that Gove is fully on board?

    And the lies about the testing, and the death numbers, and the Russia Report, and Acuri.

    If sufficient numbers to not take up the app then it has limited use. What numbers are the government aiming to achieve, by when and who will you blame if enough people do not sign up?


    I don't share the same cynicism about the government, not to the point of thinking they would try and steal personal data from peoples phones in a public health app. It's tinfoil hat thinking as far as I can tell.


    Of course if the app is literally just sharing anonymised ids to other devices without any other data or location information then that's good.


    There is a point where the cynicism and scepticism becomes much more irrational than simply saying this is a public health app that will save peoples lives.


  • #5013
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    theological wrote: »
    The figures are up to 9am on Monday morning. Meaning it is a testing figure for Sunday. I would expect this to be lower as fewer people are about for work. Also I guess that would have an impact on the delivery of home testing kits.


    I don't understand people not going to work affecting the numbers. Surely people having time off is better for testing, it means they are more able to take the slots that are available in the system as they have time. Or, they are off sick at home and could go at anytime which means it didn't matter when it is done, weekend or weekday.

    Are we to believe people having more time off means they cannot go get a test?

    I see you again take the government line on the reason the tests didn't reach 100 000. I have a question for you, do you take everything they say at face value or do you question it for even a second? I mean we know you haven't questioned the decisions the UK Government has taken. I suspect the next thing you will tell me is that it is too soon to make a comparison between countries as we need to wait for excess deaths and it takes time. When we have this data you will probably tell us to forget about the past and focus on the future as this is what is important in this fight.

    UK behind most European states in tackling coronavirus, says EU agency
    The head of the EU’s agency for disease control has warned that the UK is one of five European countries failing to reduce active coronavirus infections, despite Boris Johnson’s claims of success.

    Andrea Ammon, the director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), suggested on Monday that the UK had yet to progress as far as the majority of European countries in tackling the disease.

    In evidence to the European parliament’s committee on public health, Ammon said Europe as a whole appeared to have passed the peak of infections on Saturday, with only Bulgaria still experiencing an increase in cases of infection.

    But she told MEPs that the UK, along with Poland, Romania and Sweden, stood out as showing “no substantial changes in the last 14 days”.

    “All the others, we really see this substantial decrease,” Ammon said of the cumulative incidence rate, which provides a measure of the prevalence of active cases in the population. She did not offer any explanation of the differences.

    The ECDC monitors all 27 EU member states plus the UK, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.


  • #5014
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Are they the same tests causing controversy in Ireland?

    You will need to expand before anyone can comment. What controversy in Ireland about the kits? I cannot find anything online about it.

    theological wrote: »
    I don't share the same cynicism about the government, not to the point of thinking they would try and steal personal data from peoples phones in a public health app. It's tinfoil hat thinking as far as I can tell.


    Of course if the app is literally just sharing anonymised ids to other devices without any other data or location information then that's good.


    There is a point where the cynicism and scepticism becomes much more irrational than simply saying this is a public health app that will save peoples lives.


    I thought the reason why the UK is going for a more centralised model is that it allows for more information than the decentralised model most other countries are following? This article seems to suggest it as well,

    Coronavirus: Ireland and UK opt for different tracing approaches
    The UK is understood to be working towards a centralised model, which it believes will offer more insight into the disease.

    That is not just a simple notification if you have been in touch with someone else, it seems like more details that will be logged.


  • #5015
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,105 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    I don't share the same cynicism about the government, not to the point of thinking they would try and steal personal data from peoples phones in a public health app. It's tinfoil hat thinking as far as I can tell.


    Of course if the app is literally just sharing anonymised ids to other devices without any other data or location information then that's good.


    There is a point where the cynicism and scepticism becomes much more irrational than simply saying this is a public health app that will save peoples lives.

    It is only tin foil hat if it is based on nothing.

    I have given you plenty of examples of this government lying to you. I cannot do anything about the fact that you are prepared to give them unlimited trust and a continuous benefit of the doubt.


  • #5016
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Before the ONS releases their figures tomorrow, the FT has been updating their model. They are predicting that 50 200 deaths currently in the UK is linked to Covid-19. These include deaths due to the virus as well as deaths that has happened due to the virus taking up resources that otherwise would have been available.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1257317903721852929?s=20

    It will be interesting to see how this affects their model once they have more information.


  • Advertisement
  • #5017
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Enzokk wrote: »
    You will need to expand before anyone can comment. What controversy in Ireland about the kits? I cannot find anything online about it.


    I thought the reason why the UK is going for a more centralised model is that it allows for more information than the decentralised model most other countries are following? This article seems to suggest it as well,

    Coronavirus: Ireland and UK opt for different tracing approaches


    That is not just a simple notification if you have been in touch with someone else, it seems like more details that will be logged.


    The idea is that when you have a case reported, it will upload the information about which other device ids that you have been in contact with to a centralised server, which will then look up the other devices and then inform them that they have been in contact with you and that they should self-isolate. It may even warn people who have been in contact with people who have been in contact with the case for a second level warning. The data could probably also be useful for studying the spread of the disease and how it works.

    This isn't massively different to the Apple / Google model which requires all cases to be uploaded to a centralised server and then the devices look up the centralised server at intervals to check if their device has been in contact with any case.

    Both models require anonymised data to be stored centrally. One uploads all contact data on cases. Another downloads all phones with COVID-19 cases and compares it to the contacts on the device.


  • #5018
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Are they the same tests causing controversy in Ireland?

    No, people in ireland are not asked to take their own samples.


  • #5019
    RobMc59
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Enzokk wrote: »
    You will need to expand before anyone can comment. What controversy in Ireland about the kits? I cannot find anything online about it.





    I thought the reason why the UK is going for a more centralised model is that it allows for more information than the decentralised model most other countries are following? This article seems to suggest it as well,

    Coronavirus: Ireland and UK opt for different tracing approaches



    That is not just a simple notification if you have been in touch with someone else, it seems like more details that will be logged.
    It was on a coronavirus thread here on boards,Donegal area.


  • #5020
    RobMc59
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    No, people in ireland are not asked to take their own samples.

    Apologies,when I checked you are correct.The test described was in the Derry area


  • #5021
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,337 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/alarm-as-several-of-worlds-biggest-nations-show-new-peaks-of-infection-39178118.html
    The confirmed death toll in Britain climbed near that of Italy, the epicentre of Europe's outbreak, even though the UK population is younger than Italy's and Britain had more time to prepare before the pandemic hit.


  • Advertisement
  • #5022
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,337 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    theological wrote: »
    I don't share the same cynicism about the government, not to the point of thinking they would try and steal personal data from peoples phones in a public health app. It's tinfoil hat thinking as far as I can tell.




    I think that you are very naive.



    Are you not aware of the Cambridge Analytica scandal? Do you not know that there are very ambitious people out there that will use whatever tools they can to achieve their aims? And plenty of other companies who will build those tools for them?


  • #5023
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,712 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    I sense over the last couple of days since targets have be met that there is a change of attack manoeuvre, as this is 2 days in a row that questions relating to 'disproportionate' rates of infection in the BAME population has been raised at the briefings, where on the first occasion a Muslim journalist (who's name I don't recall) stated that the reason for this dis-proportionality is due not to underlying health conditions or any other personal factors but to... racism. At least today's question was an understandable one and didn't have any veiled inferences i.e Boris Johnson is an out and out racist and therefore he's directly responsible for the disproportionate figures.

    But this gives me an opportunity to raise an issue which to me has been completely obvious from the beginning, which is that the high death rates in the UK is directly linked to the high rates of general unhealthiness in it's population. Another reason why you can't at this stage make comparisons between the UK's performance and other countries where there are many variables to take account of, some we don't even know yet because the virus isn't fully understood.

    This topic has always been a particularly bug bear of mine in relation to both Ireland and the UK because we both have a large proportion of people who do absolutely noting to preserve their health and when you add into that the availability of inexpensive crappy food this issue is going to get worse and worse. And what makes is even more infuriating is the fact that those same people expect to be treated free at the point of use in a state run health care system at a standard you'd expect to receive if one was paying for private health insurance.

    I'm actually surprised that Sky News did a piece on this the other day because it seems to me that noone either Left or Right wish it discussed for more than a few seconds and would rather talk about racism which isn't in any way as big an issue as general obesity and the massive problems it is causing not just to the individuals themselves, many who are now dead because of it in combo with the virus, but on the finances of the state and pressure on the health service. Rather what we see in the media is articles about how people have accepted their bodies and obese cover girls on magazines.

    When you hear phrase such as 'the vulnerable' and 'those with underlying conditions', a substantial amount of these people who are categorized as such are simply overweight and I don't think this was known back in January.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHvuVQ7fX-U

    Btw, who's Helen Lovejoy?


  • #5024
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    theological wrote: »
    The idea is that when you have a case reported, it will upload the information about which other device ids that you have been in contact with to a centralised server, which will then look up the other devices and then inform them that they have been in contact with you and that they should self-isolate. It may even warn people who have been in contact with people who have been in contact with the case for a second level warning. The data could probably also be useful for studying the spread of the disease and how it works.

    This isn't massively different to the Apple / Google model which requires all cases to be uploaded to a centralised server and then the devices look up the centralised server at intervals to check if their device has been in contact with any case.

    Both models require anonymised data to be stored centrally. One uploads all contact data on cases. Another downloads all phones with COVID-19 cases and compares it to the contacts on the device.


    No, the difference between the models is that the centralised system your information is uploaded to a server centrally. The other phones connects to the same server and it is this that is able to confirm if you have been in close contact to someone that has tested positive. This system also enables more information to be uploaded to the server, hence the UK assertion that their app will offer more insight into the virus. More information from the user.

    The decentralised system doesn't send information to a server, only between users phones. So your phone through the app picks up signals from others with the same app if they have tested positive.

    If you have other information than what is described in this link, you could share it so we can see what is the correct information.
    6. There are two broad approaches to the analysis and storage of data collected by a contact tracing app:
    6.1. Centralised models: A centralised model involves the transmission by a central server of random identifiers to be transmitted by a user’s smartphone. Other smartphones in proximity to that phone then detect the identifiers and transmit this information back to the central server. If a person tests positive for COVID-19, the identifiers that their phone has received from other phones can be uploaded (either under compulsion of law or voluntarily depending on the contingent legal structure) together with the times and duration of contact and optionally other device information. The identifiers are decrypted, and notifications can be sent to proximate phones suggesting or requiring their users to self-isolate or take other measures. Because the central server has information about both those who have been infected and those who have been close to them, it enables further data (e.g. their location or other personal information) to be connected together at speed and scale.

    6.2. Decentralised models: The main characteristic of a decentralised model is that identifiers are generated on a user’s device and cannot be matched by any central server. When a patient is diagnosed positive for COVID-19 the identifiers that their smartphone has transmitted are uploaded (rather than those it has received). Other smartphones can access these data and establish whether it has been in proximity to the infected individual’s smartphone. If a smartphone identifies matches to a confirmed COVID-19 patient’s identifiers, then a notification can be generated to the user. The nature and content of that notification, as in the centralised model, is not prescribed by the system. This model ensures that the proximity of persons to COVID-19 patients is not known to any central server or authority.

    So it seems to come down to, do you trust the UK Government to use the data they will obtain by you using this app responsibly.


  • #5025
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    AllForIt wrote: »
    I sense over the last couple of days since targets have be met that there is a change of attack manoeuvre, as this is 2 days in a row that questions relating to 'disproportionate' rates of infection in the BAME population has been raised at the briefings, where on the first occasion a Muslim journalist (who's name I don't recall) stated that the reason for this dis-proportionality is due not to underlying health conditions or any other personal factors but to... racism. At least today's question was an understandable one and didn't have any veiled inferences i.e Boris Johnson is an out and out racist and therefore he's directly responsible for the disproportionate figures.


    I don't think this is a different strategy of attack. We know that more BAME medical staff seem to have died in the UK. This is where the questions were initially asked and if there are further questions that follows on from this due to the same pattern happening to the wider population then it needs to be looked at.

    I don't think people have blamed Johnson for more BAME medical staff dying, but if they are more susceptible to the virus and they were sent out to treat others who are infected without proper PPE, that is a tragedy. It is part of the wider UK failure to deal with the pandemic.


  • #5026
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,301 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    theological wrote: »
    The idea is that when you have a case reported, it will upload the information about which other device ids that you have been in contact with to a centralised server, which will then look up the other devices and then inform them that they have been in contact with you and that they should self-isolate. It may even warn people who have been in contact with people who have been in contact with the case for a second level warning. The data could probably also be useful for studying the spread of the disease and how it works.

    This isn't massively different to the Apple / Google model which requires all cases to be uploaded to a centralised server and then the devices look up the centralised server at intervals to check if their device has been in contact with any case.

    Both models require anonymised data to be stored centrally. One uploads all contact data on cases. Another downloads all phones with COVID-19 cases and compares it to the contacts on the device.

    If it is practicually the same (as you are stating here), why the need to do something different at all?


  • #5027
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Enzokk wrote: »
    No, the difference between the models is that the centralised system your information is uploaded to a server centrally. The other phones connects to the same server and it is this that is able to confirm if you have been in close contact to someone that has tested positive. This system also enables more information to be uploaded to the server, hence the UK assertion that their app will offer more insight into the virus. More information from the user.

    The decentralised system doesn't send information to a server, only between users phones. So your phone through the app picks up signals from others with the same app if they have tested positive.

    If you have other information than what is described in this link, you could share it so we can see what is the correct information.



    So it seems to come down to, do you trust the UK Government to use the data they will obtain by you using this app responsibly.

    That's exactly it: trust. If you're an average Billy Bunter who knows nothing about jargon, are you suoposed to listen to a whole load of jargon about codes and whatever and just say, ok grand, or instead do you just consider its track record on issues of trust and ask yourself why on earth should i trust them this time? Think that's how lots will see it anyway.


  • #5028
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Enzokk wrote: »
    No, the difference between the models is that the centralised system your information is uploaded to a server centrally. The other phones connects to the same server and it is this that is able to confirm if you have been in close contact to someone that has tested positive. This system also enables more information to be uploaded to the server, hence the UK assertion that their app will offer more insight into the virus. More information from the user.

    The decentralised system doesn't send information to a server, only between users phones. So your phone through the app picks up signals from others with the same app if they have tested positive.

    If you have other information than what is described in this link, you could share it so we can see what is the correct information.



    So it seems to come down to, do you trust the UK Government to use the data they will obtain by you using this app responsibly.

    Both models the Apple / Google one, and the NHSX app require centralisation.

    The Apple / Google one uploads the cases to a centralised server and requires the phones to download and compare with a local database of who they have been in contact with.

    The NHSX one uploads all of the identifiers a phone has been in contact with and then alerts.

    The first requires less data to be stored on the server than the second, but both are centralised.

    If the data that comes from my phone is a randomised ID based on my phone and timeslot without any other personal information then they can have it if it helps to keep us safe and helps experts to learn about how the disease spreads.


  • #5029
    S.M.B.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,383 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    I'm more concerned with the app being worthless in a few weeks for being excluded from iTunes than the privacy concerns. It's a shame there isn't a unified approach across the world rather than everybody trying to invent the wheel concurrently.

    I think there's a concern from some that while the app is optional that it will become utilised in a way that could make life difficult without it.


  • #5030
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,298 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    theological wrote: »
    I don't share the same cynicism about the government, not to the point of thinking they would try and steal personal data from peoples phones in a public health app. It's tinfoil hat thinking as far as I can tell.

    The problem, as I see it, is not whether or not to wear a tinfoil hat but whether the current administration can be counted upon to "expect the unexpected" - and react accordingly. That's where there's a huge deficit: over the last ten years, and particularly during the Referendum Years, and even more particularly during Johnson's premiership, the governing Tories have been (apparently) caught unawares over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    On the face of it, I agree that there's no reason to think that anyone in or connected to No.10 Downing Street is deliberately setting out persuade the population to load malware onto their phones. But there are dozens of examples (hundreds if you go down the rabbit hole) of supposedly secure software having unexpected weak points that allow hackers to line up different sets of data to make a complete picture, e.g. the widely trusted Avast antivirus program.

    Now take a government that has already given Amazon free access to the NHS's patient data. How can anyone have confidence that this administration would recognise the potential threat posed by some third party finding a way to link your Covid data to the Amazon database?

    Remember: this is the same administration that awarded a ferry service contract to a company with no ferries; the same administration with a minister who didn't realise that Dover-Calais was a major import-export traffic route; the same administration led by someone who couldn't see the difference between the boundaries between Camden&Westminster and Down&Louth; the same administration that can't seem to count anything with any degree of certainty ... and has an inexplicable difficulty in publishing the results of enquiries into matters of great public interest.


  • #5031
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    More jobs for the boys :rolleyes:

    https://twitter.com/rstrongdoctor/status/1257290340471578626?s=19


    As for data protection, "trust us" seems to be the policy...
    UK COVID-19 contact-tracing app data may be kept for 'research' after crisis ends, MPs told
    Want to opt out of that part? No chance, says NHSX chief


  • Advertisement
  • #5032
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,074 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    RobMc59 wrote: »

    It was on a coronavirus thread here on boards,Donegal area.

    And.... You cant even link the thread or post on it?


  • #5033
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,448 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Thing is, i would probably on balance download the app, but the thousands that wont, i totally understand them. Having Cummings even remotely linked to the initiative with his shady Vote Leave buddy is unforgivable, just raises red flags all over the place.

    In other news, just over 62,000 people tested today. Not far off a 30% retest figure. Seem to be giving up with the worthless postal kits.

    https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1257361821784322058?s=20
    The scorpion and the Frog

    It is in Cummings nature to sting

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #5034
    RobMc59
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    VinLieger wrote: »
    And.... You cant even link the thread or post on it?

    Apologies for delay in posting link.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058060465


  • #5035
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    theological wrote: »
    Both models the Apple / Google one, and the NHSX app require centralisation.

    The Apple / Google one uploads the cases to a centralised server and requires the phones to download and compare with a local database of who they have been in contact with.

    The NHSX one uploads all of the identifiers a phone has been in contact with and then alerts.

    The first requires less data to be stored on the server than the second, but both are centralised.

    If the data that comes from my phone is a randomised ID based on my phone and timeslot without any other personal information then they can have it if it helps to keep us safe and helps experts to learn about how the disease spreads.


    You are right that both use a server, but the amount of data stored and used by the server is a lot different. I don't think there is a comparison in the amount of data stored or the way the data is used between the 2 models. For an app that would need people to use it to ensure its success, to make it the model that has questions on how your data will be used seems counterintuitive to the goal of the app.

    Surely you make it the most secure app for data for a country where people are skeptical about I.D. cards. Maybe I have it wrong though.

    To the numbers, this shows how close the FT has been with their numbers on the deaths due to coronavirus directly or indirectly,

    https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1257594955922628614?s=20

    That is very close to their estimate.


  • #5036
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,515 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Apologies for delay in posting link.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058060465

    You couldn't just link the article instead of a 300-odd post thread?

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #5037
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,301 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    The ONS figures are out and is up to 24 April and it shows (If I am reading the spreadsheet correctly);

    UK: 29,912

    England: 25,990
    Scotland: 2,269
    Wales: 1,283
    NI: 370

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales


  • #5038
    Non solum non ambulabit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Non solum non ambulabit


    UK coronavirus death toll rises above 32,000 to highest in Europe

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-rises-above-32000-to-highest-in-europe?

    The Office for National Statistics said 29,648 deaths registered in in England and Wales by 2 May with Covid-19 mentioned in death certificates.

    With the addition of deaths in Scotland and Northern Ireland, this takes the UK’s death toll to 32,313.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/articles/comparisonofweeklydeathoccurrencesinenglandandwales/latest


  • #5039
    S.M.B.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,383 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    theological wrote: »
    Both models the Apple / Google one, and the NHSX app require centralisation.

    The Apple / Google one uploads the cases to a centralised server and requires the phones to download and compare with a local database of who they have been in contact with.

    The NHSX one uploads all of the identifiers a phone has been in contact with and then alerts.

    The first requires less data to be stored on the server than the second, but both are centralised.

    If the data that comes from my phone is a randomised ID based on my phone and timeslot without any other personal information then they can have it if it helps to keep us safe and helps experts to learn about how the disease spreads.
    Both are centralised but there's clearly much richer data available in the NHSX app, which is exactly why they're going down that route.

    Given the personal nature of the data I can understand why some will have reservations in providing it.

    If the app was released tomorrow I would have to weigh up the pros and cons in relation to my privacy concerns/battery life versus the utility of the app . Like you, I may be happy to install it with the understanding that the data is anonymous. Others will feel differently as it's very sensitive information to be providing to any third party.


  • #5040
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Enzokk wrote: »
    You are right that both use a server, but the amount of data stored and used by the server is a lot different. I don't think there is a comparison in the amount of data stored or the way the data is used between the 2 models. For an app that would need people to use it to ensure its success, to make it the model that has questions on how your data will be used seems counterintuitive to the goal of the app.

    Surely you make it the most secure app for data for a country where people are skeptical about I.D. cards. Maybe I have it wrong though.

    An ID card actually contains the name and other identifying information such as a photograph.

    A hash based on a randomised identifier based on the phone and the time is completely different.

    If the data can help us learn more about how the disease spreads using the anonymised ids and case data then I'm happy to offer it given that it contains nothing about me. Just a random identifier from my phone and a random identifier from other phones who were in my orbit.
    S.M.B. wrote: »
    Both are centralised but there's clearly much richer data available in the NHSX app, which is exactly why they're going down that route.

    Given the personal nature of the data I can understand why some will have reservations in providing it.

    If the app was released tomorrow I would have to weigh up the pros and cons in relation to my privacy concerns/battery life versus the utility of the app . Like you, I may be happy to install it with the understanding that the data is anonymous. Others will feel differently as it's very sensitive information to be providing to any third party.

    What is personal about a random id that cannot be associated with your name, address or anything else?

    I agree if the data is sensitive, I'd have concerns but the idea is based on random ids being shared over Bluetooth to determine what phones you were in contact with.

    If this app is going to help to save lives then I'd be happy to spare some of my battery life to achieve that aim. They will have tested this and the Isle of Wight trial should help them to get this right.


  • Advertisement
  • #5041
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    theological wrote: »
    An ID card actually contains the name and other identifying information such as a photograph.

    A hash based on a randomised identifier based on the phone and the time is completely different.

    If the data can help us learn more about how the disease spreads using the anonymised ids and case data then I'm happy to offer it given that it contains nothing about me. Just a random identifier from my phone and a random identifier from other phones who were in my orbit.



    What is personal about a random id that cannot be associated with your name, address or anything else?
    Has the source code been made available for scrutiny?
    If not, why not?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement