A RIGHTS group has called for an open discussion about a new app that tracks Covid-19 infections amid concerns that some countries, including the UK, are pursuing a model that would put them on a crash course with developers Google and Apple.
The Open Rights Group (ORG) said the application programming interface (API) from the two tech giants – a privacy-conscious, decentralised model – had been adopted by some European countries, among them Switzerland and Austria. However it said others, most notably France and Germany, are sticking to a “centralised” means of contact matching. It said the UK’s app was also centralised and impossible to use with the Google/Apple technology.
This meant that centralised apps not using the new API would force users to keep their screen unlocked to allow Bluetooth to carry on working, presenting a security nightmare, according to the ORG, and a drain on battery power, which would make the apps close to unusable.
“Thus we have to suspect that the governments in France, Germany and the UK are hoping that Apple and Google simply back down and let them access their new API,” said Jim Killock, executive director of ORG.
“The governments may have clinical reasons to stick to a centralised approach, but without an open conversation about why exactly governments want a particular solution, it is impossible to judge whether their needs are real, or capable of being met another way.
“An open discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the Apple-Google approach and government needs is critical.
“Without that there is a distinct likelihood of an acrimonious argument, where governments accuse ‘big tech’ of getting in the way of helping deal with the pandemic. That is good for nobody, except policy-makers seeking to avoid blame.”
Killock added: “Maintaining their poor track record for transparency, the UK Government has been quiet lately on tracing apps and we are yet to hear anything substantial about the proposed approach to ‘immunity passports’. This weakens public trust when it is most needed.
“No matter what technologies are employed they require strong legal and technical privacy protections to build public trust, especially for vulnerable groups like migrants.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel