4 ms·

Can someone clearly explain the actual privacy risks of the centralised model (that UK Govt is pursuing) over the decentralised model? My understanding is that

Can someone clearly explain the actual privacy risks of the centralised model (that UK Govt is pursuing) over the decentralised model? My understanding is that in reporting our unique identifiers (and location data?) to the govt servers, this data could be de-anonymised and misused. But what data is actually being reported and how could it be misused?

cameronbrown 6y ago
Imo the threat here isn't just the government - that's a concern, but if you've been tested positive, the NHS already know you. The bigger issue is potential leaks or poor access controls resulting in a malicious third party gaining access. With the decentralised approach where Apple/Google control access to their APIs, the threat surface is significantly reduced (e.g. contact tracing apps cannot also use geolocation) Disclosure: Also a Google employee.
- rozab 6y ago
  And so the question remains: >But what data is actually being reported and how could it be misused? All advertisers already know who I live with, and if I'm obeying social distancing I will only be coming into contact with strangers. Is this data really more sensitive than the stuff we firehouse out every day?
k1t 6y ago
My understanding is that the centralised model means the government will very quickly get a huge database of who meets whom, how often, and for how long. Even if you don't couple this with location data, it's still a privacy nightmare. If you test positive for COVID19 the government would use this information to send out alerts to people you've recently been in contact with. With the de-centralised model, your device tracks who you've seen recently and when. The government would announce the IDs of devices owned by people that had tested positive and your device would tell you if you had encountered any of the positive devices. The centralised approach makes it much easier for the government to track compliance (e.g. we know 500 people should have come forward for testing, but only 200 did) - but again, complete privacy disaster.

cameronbrown 6y ago

Imo the threat here isn't just the government - that's a concern, but if you've been tested positive, the NHS already know you. The bigger issue is potential leaks or poor access controls resulting in a malicious third party gaining access. With the decentralised approach where Apple/Google control access to their APIs, the threat surface is significantly reduced (e.g. contact tracing apps cannot also use geolocation) Disclosure: Also a Google employee.

rozab 6y ago
And so the question remains: >But what data is actually being reported and how could it be misused? All advertisers already know who I live with, and if I'm obeying social distancing I will only be coming into contact with strangers. Is this data really more sensitive than the stuff we firehouse out every day?

k1t 6y ago

My understanding is that the centralised model means the government will very quickly get a huge database of who meets whom, how often, and for how long. Even if you don't couple this with location data, it's still a privacy nightmare. If you test positive for COVID19 the government would use this information to send out alerts to people you've recently been in contact with. With the de-centralised model, your device tracks who you've seen recently and when. The government would announce the IDs of devices owned by people that had tested positive and your device would tell you if you had encountered any of the positive devices. The centralised approach makes it much easier for the government to track compliance (e.g. we know 500 people should have come forward for testing, but only 200 did) - but again, complete privacy disaster.