10 ms·

Irrespective of ones own feelings about this particular app: isn't it interesting that Google and Apple have the power to collect all our location data, but can

Irrespective of ones own feelings about this particular app: isn't it interesting that Google and Apple have the power to collect all our location data, but can refuse our democratic governments access to that data even on a voluntary basis?

Hamuko 6y ago
Apple and Google are just upholding their part of the agreement.
- cameronh90 6y ago
  I'm not sure you can call it an agreement in any true sense. Apple and Google dictated the terms for accessing the Bluetooth hardware in the particular way required. Many governments around the world wanted more direct access to the hardware than Apple/Google have permitted, or (voluntary or otherwise) access to location data. Google and Apple said if you don't agree to these terms, you don't get to access anything. 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.
  - jjgreen 6y ago
    Governments do not have rights, they have power.
mbalyuzi 6y ago
I find it interesting that there seems to be a (wilful?) ignorance on the part of our government as to quite how big and powerful those corporations are. 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.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  > 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 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".
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  After seeing what Facebook would let the Russian government do, who in the U.S. government would cross them unless they had momentum for an antitrust suit and that includes a Supreme Court ready to enforce a pro-citizen regime.
- spzb 6y ago
  > coupled with incompetent IT project management 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.
  - makomk 6y ago
    Funny you should mention that. Literally the day that the UK rolled out the new app using the Google/Apple solution, the BBC suddenly forgot about the downsides of the old app and decided that its advantages over the new one were real after all. Even found a few experts to back them up, whereas before you'd think only the government considered it to have any advantage.
ircshotty 6y ago
Can't speak for Google's case - but Apple certainly goes to great pains to make it clear they don't collect location data on users - it's left on the user's device. 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.
- cameronh90 6y ago
  Apple definitely have a stronger case here, because as you say, they do more generally go to lengths to protect user privacy. That being said, they do use location-based advertising themselves.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Apple sent users data about what app their run and when they to their servers, and if I remember right the protocol was not secure enough. So either Apple does not care about privacy or they are incompetent not to implement that feature respecting the users privacy.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  Well put! These are the moments which everyone remembers and refers back to when the next troll comes along and claims that Apple must allow third party app stores.
  - simion314 6y ago
    People are not trolls to demand the freedom to do whatever they want with their property and the freedom to pass laws to force Apple to permit that. The argument that if you do not like Apple or Goole use Linux can be reverse and if Apple or Google does not like EU or other market with anti-competitive laws they are very,very free not to do business there. 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 )
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
In this specific case, I'm really glad they're exercising their power, because they seem to be doing it in the best possible way, and have forced governments to do the right, privacy-preserving thing. 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.
- llimos 6y ago
  > nobody should be forced to help the government implement something unethical 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.
  - RossM 6y ago
    > Nobody is forced to install the app at all (at least in the UK's case). 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-customers-and-visitors-to-support-nhs-test-and-trace 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".
nojito 6y ago
The contract they initially signed said they won’t collect location data and now they want to collect data without signing a new contract. They even acknowledge they made a mistake in the initial contract. What’s the issue here?
Kim_Bruning 6y ago
Just so long as we're clear that the final conclusion ought to be that no-one should have that data; rather than "ok, let's give it to the government, my next door neighbour, and the nearest cat as well then"
WinstonSmith84 6y ago
Better the devil you know? The worse that Google may do with your data is targeting you with some personalised ads. As for Apple, they have probably even less interests with those... But your government is a different matter. Speeding, financial "crimes", ... evading Covid-19 restrictions :-) Actually the scariest about Google / Apple collecting your data is ironically when a government entity may investigate you and request data from these companies
Angostura 6y ago
With Apple, at least you can opt out of all location info going to Apple

Hamuko 6y ago

Apple and Google are just upholding their part of the agreement.

cameronh90 6y ago
I'm not sure you can call it an agreement in any true sense. Apple and Google dictated the terms for accessing the Bluetooth hardware in the particular way required. Many governments around the world wanted more direct access to the hardware than Apple/Google have permitted, or (voluntary or otherwise) access to location data. Google and Apple said if you don't agree to these terms, you don't get to access anything. 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.
- jjgreen 6y ago
  Governments do not have rights, they have power.

mbalyuzi 6y ago

I find it interesting that there seems to be a (wilful?) ignorance on the part of our government as to quite how big and powerful those corporations are. 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.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
> 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 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".
spacemanmatt 6y ago
After seeing what Facebook would let the Russian government do, who in the U.S. government would cross them unless they had momentum for an antitrust suit and that includes a Supreme Court ready to enforce a pro-citizen regime.
spzb 6y ago
> coupled with incompetent IT project management 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.
- makomk 6y ago
  Funny you should mention that. Literally the day that the UK rolled out the new app using the Google/Apple solution, the BBC suddenly forgot about the downsides of the old app and decided that its advantages over the new one were real after all. Even found a few experts to back them up, whereas before you'd think only the government considered it to have any advantage.

ircshotty 6y ago

Can't speak for Google's case - but Apple certainly goes to great pains to make it clear they don't collect location data on users - it's left on the user's device. 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.

cameronh90 6y ago
Apple definitely have a stronger case here, because as you say, they do more generally go to lengths to protect user privacy. That being said, they do use location-based advertising themselves.
- simion314 6y ago
  Apple sent users data about what app their run and when they to their servers, and if I remember right the protocol was not secure enough. So either Apple does not care about privacy or they are incompetent not to implement that feature respecting the users privacy.
dustinmoris 6y ago
Well put! These are the moments which everyone remembers and refers back to when the next troll comes along and claims that Apple must allow third party app stores.
- simion314 6y ago
  People are not trolls to demand the freedom to do whatever they want with their property and the freedom to pass laws to force Apple to permit that. The argument that if you do not like Apple or Goole use Linux can be reverse and if Apple or Google does not like EU or other market with anti-competitive laws they are very,very free not to do business there. 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 )

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

In this specific case, I'm really glad they're exercising their power, because they seem to be doing it in the best possible way, and have forced governments to do the right, privacy-preserving thing. 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.

llimos 6y ago
> nobody should be forced to help the government implement something unethical 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.
- RossM 6y ago
  > Nobody is forced to install the app at all (at least in the UK's case). 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-customers-and-visitors-to-support-nhs-test-and-trace 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".

nojito 6y ago

The contract they initially signed said they won’t collect location data and now they want to collect data without signing a new contract. They even acknowledge they made a mistake in the initial contract. What’s the issue here?

Kim_Bruning 6y ago

Just so long as we're clear that the final conclusion ought to be that no-one should have that data; rather than "ok, let's give it to the government, my next door neighbour, and the nearest cat as well then"

WinstonSmith84 6y ago

Better the devil you know? The worse that Google may do with your data is targeting you with some personalised ads. As for Apple, they have probably even less interests with those... But your government is a different matter. Speeding, financial "crimes", ... evading Covid-19 restrictions :-) Actually the scariest about Google / Apple collecting your data is ironically when a government entity may investigate you and request data from these companies

Angostura 6y ago

With Apple, at least you can opt out of all location info going to Apple