11 ms·

As a Briton, the idea of having to access government services through mobile apps seems vaguely offensive. Apps are expensive to build, allow rampant surveilla

As a Briton, the idea of having to access government services through mobile apps seems vaguely offensive. Apps are expensive to build, allow rampant surveillance that it's very hard to audit under the hood, and mean that customer information is distributed based on your ability to access a smartphone. The U.K. government also has a poor record of delivering large scale IT projects with complex chains of dependencies (the overhaul of the NHS IT system was cancelled after spending several billions on a Patient Information system that no one ever ended up using). Given the chance, departments would have tried to create the 'Everything App' at enormous expense and with zero interoperability between depts. The decision to push the GDS methodology across the whole of government was hugely unpopular within the civil service at the time but they've been absolutely vindicated in their approach.

zepto 10y ago
I agree with most of this except the 'allow rampant surveillance' and 'very hard to audit'. How are apps special in these regards?
- chipperyman573 10y ago
  It is significantly harder to audit the security of an app than a webpage, because with a webpage all the code is visible to you, the end user.
  - xapata 10y ago
    For a very loose definition of "all the code"
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      All the client-side code then.
  - dave2000 10y ago
    Anyone vaguely skilled can reverse engineer an android app. Modern versions of android (ie Android 6, which I appreciate only 0.0001% of android users actually have) let you control which permissions an app can use.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      If "vaguely skilled" is what it takes to audit an Android app, then "borderline incompetent" is all you need to audit a web app. Other commenters are talking about relative ease, not absolute impossibility.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Apps tend to ask for far too many permissions beyond those available to the browser, including your contacts list, SMS history, etc. (Of course, the government already has all of this stuff)
- scholia 10y ago
  Some academics tested 110 popular, free Android and iOS apps in the Journal of Technology Science. They found that "73% of Android apps shared personal information such as email address with third parties, and 47% of iOS apps shared geo-coordinates and other location data with third parties". http://jots.pub/a/2015103001/ http://jots.pub/a/2015103001/
- zepto 10y ago
  Ok - so I see the answers, but we're taking about apps shipped by the government. What's the concern? That they'll bug your microphone, or do identity theft?
jbigelow76 10y ago
>Apps are expensive to build >The U.K. government also has a poor record of delivering large scale IT projects with complex chains of dependencies... Staying on the web and skipping native isn't a panacea for budget bloat, poor project scoping, and loosely supervised bidding processes. State and municipal agencies routinely pay stupid amounts of money for trivial functionality on the web.
- kristianc 10y ago
  No, but telling each department that they can tender for their own contracts, put non-technical people in charge of project planning, and deliver services in whichever format they want more or less guarantees those things. The money wasted on Connected for Health (often paid directly into the pockets of management consultants) is nothing short of criminal.
- untog 10y ago
  > Staying on the web and skipping native isn't a panacea for budget bloat, poor project scoping, and loosely supervised bidding processes No, but bidding on one (web) project rather than three (web, Android, iOS) certainly helps.
  - daveguy 10y ago
    Exactly. And there are very few applications which require native apps. I typically avoid them. A good "app" or OS/browser function that makes a special icon to link to a specific page could replace 90% of apps. Games would probably be one of the few exceptions although web game programming has come a long way since HTML5.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      Especially as most interfacing with the Government is one-way information push, or form-filling, or in very few cases request-response - all things that web browsers are really good at.
- tim333 10y ago
zeristor 10y ago
Makes me wonder if GDS is going to do the NHS
- open-source-ux 10y ago
  Yes, they are (the website, that is)! Here is the NHS.UK beta blog http://digital.nhs.uk/ http://digital.nhs.uk/ The current www.nhs.uk website may not look pretty and is a bit messy in the way it's organised, but it's a real goldmine of health information. Plus, you can trust that it's written by qualified medical practitioners. I really hope the GDS team can make the new NHS site as simple, clear and easy to use as gov.uk. Slight digression: I'm always a little annoyed when Google gives livestrong.com top billing in their search results when you search for a medical condition. I can understand that people outside the UK might prefer livestrong.com, but I think most UK web users (using Google UK) would consider the NHS website as more reliable and appropriate than livestrong.
  - kristianc 10y ago
    > I think most UK web users (using Google UK) would consider the NHS website as more reliable and appropriate than livestrong. It is strange, as there have long been rumoured to be manual tweaks within Google search that say, for instance, BBC iPlayer radio will always come on top of a search for radio. You'd think there would be even more reason for the same to exist for health information.
  - zeristor 10y ago
    By "do" the NHS I meant the whole interactive system, not just providing information. User interaction, booking appointments, reading case notes etc, sharing data between medical staff, the big ugly monster that scuppered the previous attempt. Was it really £14b wasted? [0] I wish them all the best! Regarding the the NHS information; this has always impressed me. They put a date on each page when it was last reviewed, and when it is next due to be reviewed. I keep wanting to do this on the websites I work on, if I only I could get beyond maintenance. [0] - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-s...
  - 10y ago
gohrt 10y ago
How are apps more expensive than websites?
- RobertKerans 10y ago
  Two further sets of developers, generally. Two extra deployment platforms. Two extra things to keep up to date. Etc.

zepto 10y ago

I agree with most of this except the 'allow rampant surveillance' and 'very hard to audit'. How are apps special in these regards?

chipperyman573 10y ago
It is significantly harder to audit the security of an app than a webpage, because with a webpage all the code is visible to you, the end user.
- xapata 10y ago
  For a very loose definition of "all the code"
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    All the client-side code then.
- dave2000 10y ago
  Anyone vaguely skilled can reverse engineer an android app. Modern versions of android (ie Android 6, which I appreciate only 0.0001% of android users actually have) let you control which permissions an app can use.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    If "vaguely skilled" is what it takes to audit an Android app, then "borderline incompetent" is all you need to audit a web app. Other commenters are talking about relative ease, not absolute impossibility.
pjc50 10y ago
Apps tend to ask for far too many permissions beyond those available to the browser, including your contacts list, SMS history, etc. (Of course, the government already has all of this stuff)
scholia 10y ago
Some academics tested 110 popular, free Android and iOS apps in the Journal of Technology Science. They found that "73% of Android apps shared personal information such as email address with third parties, and 47% of iOS apps shared geo-coordinates and other location data with third parties". http://jots.pub/a/2015103001/ http://jots.pub/a/2015103001/
zepto 10y ago
Ok - so I see the answers, but we're taking about apps shipped by the government. What's the concern? That they'll bug your microphone, or do identity theft?

jbigelow76 10y ago

>Apps are expensive to build >The U.K. government also has a poor record of delivering large scale IT projects with complex chains of dependencies... Staying on the web and skipping native isn't a panacea for budget bloat, poor project scoping, and loosely supervised bidding processes. State and municipal agencies routinely pay stupid amounts of money for trivial functionality on the web.

kristianc 10y ago
No, but telling each department that they can tender for their own contracts, put non-technical people in charge of project planning, and deliver services in whichever format they want more or less guarantees those things. The money wasted on Connected for Health (often paid directly into the pockets of management consultants) is nothing short of criminal.
untog 10y ago
> Staying on the web and skipping native isn't a panacea for budget bloat, poor project scoping, and loosely supervised bidding processes No, but bidding on one (web) project rather than three (web, Android, iOS) certainly helps.
- daveguy 10y ago
  Exactly. And there are very few applications which require native apps. I typically avoid them. A good "app" or OS/browser function that makes a special icon to link to a specific page could replace 90% of apps. Games would probably be one of the few exceptions although web game programming has come a long way since HTML5.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Especially as most interfacing with the Government is one-way information push, or form-filling, or in very few cases request-response - all things that web browsers are really good at.
tim333 10y ago

zeristor 10y ago

Makes me wonder if GDS is going to do the NHS

open-source-ux 10y ago
Yes, they are (the website, that is)! Here is the NHS.UK beta blog http://digital.nhs.uk/ http://digital.nhs.uk/ The current www.nhs.uk website may not look pretty and is a bit messy in the way it's organised, but it's a real goldmine of health information. Plus, you can trust that it's written by qualified medical practitioners. I really hope the GDS team can make the new NHS site as simple, clear and easy to use as gov.uk. Slight digression: I'm always a little annoyed when Google gives livestrong.com top billing in their search results when you search for a medical condition. I can understand that people outside the UK might prefer livestrong.com, but I think most UK web users (using Google UK) would consider the NHS website as more reliable and appropriate than livestrong.
- kristianc 10y ago
  > I think most UK web users (using Google UK) would consider the NHS website as more reliable and appropriate than livestrong. It is strange, as there have long been rumoured to be manual tweaks within Google search that say, for instance, BBC iPlayer radio will always come on top of a search for radio. You'd think there would be even more reason for the same to exist for health information.
- zeristor 10y ago
  By "do" the NHS I meant the whole interactive system, not just providing information. User interaction, booking appointments, reading case notes etc, sharing data between medical staff, the big ugly monster that scuppered the previous attempt. Was it really £14b wasted? [0] I wish them all the best! Regarding the the NHS information; this has always impressed me. They put a date on each page when it was last reviewed, and when it is next due to be reviewed. I keep wanting to do this on the websites I work on, if I only I could get beyond maintenance. [0] - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-s...
- 10y ago

gohrt 10y ago

How are apps more expensive than websites?

RobertKerans 10y ago
Two further sets of developers, generally. Two extra deployment platforms. Two extra things to keep up to date. Etc.