I agree that it's probably not worth the privacy trade offs, but I don't think it's as absolutely clear cut as most of my filter bubble seems to think.
The app has to actually work for a high enough proportion fo cases, though.
I recall some dickhead politician being asked about security of a centralised app, his response was "GDPR would take care of that". Because hackers care about that kind of thing.
Honestly this uk government is so bloody inept. When you want theresa may back, that tells you something.
There's too much temptation for governments with poor privacy track records (and that's where they're even trying) to stick their hands in the cookie jar for other purposes.
Whether that is enough protection is a fair debate.
https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/security-behind-nhs-contac...
I think part of the problem with it is that the beginning is a bit of a long winded intro, but the technical details later are really good.
Google has 7,000 people working on maps, Apple has 4,000 people working on maps, is it really possible that a few app developers assembled by the tories (who have a track record of failure and lies) have stumbled upon a more accurate way to calculate the distance between devices than the 11,000 people that work on these problems full-time have ever managed?
If this was really a benefit, I'd expect the journalist would have been briefed on the beneficial outcome of the data analysis, rather than just "more data analysis".
The NHSX app tried to do too much — trying to collect centralised data when one key function didn't need to be centralised was always going to be an issue when trying to get people to install it in large numbers.
Smaller samples are enough for population surveys, while high percentages are needed for the track and trace function. Mixing up the two into one app has doomed this project.
Seems a pretty clearly spelt out to me.
Doesn't it mean: there just aren't enough tests for this to be worthwhile?
[Edited to add: I re-read the article and - yes, it means there is not enough testing capacity. Limiting case detection to the number of tests you have available is absolutely not a benefit, unless you are a government trying to obscure the truth, perhaps]
Also, it's not just tests that are short, but contact tracing resources. Basically, when you shut down a business or location due to an outbreak, you want to be as precise and accurate as possible - to do otherwise will cost the affected too much, and they'll start to ignore the contact tracing system entirely.
We'll probably never know now if there was an actual benefit to the NHS's proposal, but it seemed at least plausible.