Turns out app doesn't work on iPhones! Korski says you would have only found this out after extensive testing. Does this stand up? No ...
... not only was it widely known and discussed (I flagged it by email on 11 April), but *before the Isle of Wight study*, @TheRegister ran an article detailing the problem theregister.com/2020/05/05/uk_…. And not only that...
This issue was already detailed and reproduced on GitHub by volunteers within 24 hours of the NHS app code being open sourcd, which they only did the day after Isle of Wight tests started. Didn't need field tests to see this was a problem. github.com/nhsx/COVID-19-…
While Hancock states this was happening, DHSC and NHSX denied it to every journalist. Who was right? Furthermore, developer versions of the API were around in April.
The common statement that NHSX was first, then others followed, also deserves more scrutiny. Apple/Google based their system off of the pan-European research project DP-3T, which I am involved in, which also included UK academics who were not asked to advise. Plenty of lead time.
How about the code for the Swiss app, which was open sourced before NHSX's, with the protocol released and scrutinised before NHSX even announced the idea of an app, and involved UK universities in its conception?
This is not the decentralised-centralised debate. It's about the specific technical hurdle that NHSX fell over in the end. That was alerted to them from multiple angles in early April onwards, and was not taken seriously. And so, predictably, they fell over it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
How do and should model marketplaces hosting user-uploaded AI systems like @HuggingFace @GitHub & @HelloCivitai moderate models & answer takedown requests? In a new paper, @rgorwa & I provide case studies of tricky AI platform drama & chart a way forward. osf.io/preprints/soca…
@huggingface @github @HelloCivitai @rgorwa There are a growing number of model marketplaces (Table). They can be hosting models that can create clear legal liability (e.g. models that can output terrorist manuals or CSAM). They are also hosting AI that may be used harmfully, and some are already trying to moderate this.
@huggingface @github @HelloCivitai @rgorwa Models can memorise content and reproduce it. They can also piece together new illegal content that has never been seen before. To this end, they can be (and some regimes would) equate them with that illegal content. But how would marketplaces assess such a takedown request?
Int’l students are indeed used to subsidise teaching. High quality undergraduate degrees cost more than £9250 to run (always have in real terms), but were been subsidised by both govs (now rarely) & academic pay cuts. If int’l students capped, what fills the gap @halfon4harlowMP?
Tuition fees are a political topic because they’re visible to students, but the real question is ‘how is a degree funded’? The burden continues to shift from taxation into individual student debt, precarious reliance on int’l students, and lecturer pay.
Universities like Oxford distort the narrative too. College life is largely, often subsidised by the college endowment and assets, by the past. The fact so much of the political class went to a university with a non replicable funding model compounds issues hugely.
Users of the Instagram app should today send a subject access request email to Meta requesting a copy of all this telemetry ‘tap’ data. It is not provided in the ‘Download Your Information’ tool. Users of other apps in the thread that do this (eg TikTok) can do the same.
Form: m.facebook.com/help/contact/5…
Say you are using Art 15 GDPR to access a copy of data from in-app browsers, including all telemetry and click data for all time. Say it is not in ‘Download your Information’. Link to Krause’s post for clarity. Mention your Instagram handle.
The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill contains a lot of changes. Some were previewed in the June consultation response. Others weren't. Some observations: 🧵
Overshadowing everything is an ability for the Secretary of State to amend anything they feel like about the text of the UK GDPR through regulations, circumventing Parliamentary debate. This should not happen in a parliamentary democracy, is an abuse of powers, and must not pass.
Article 22, around automated decision-making, is gone, replaced by three articles which in effect say that normal significant, automated decisions are never forbidden but get some already-present safeguards; decisions based on ethnicity, sexuality, etc require a legal basis.
No legislation envisaged, just v general "cross-sectoral principles on a non-statutory footing". UK gov continues its trend of shuffling responsibility for developing a regulatory approach onto the regulators themselves, while EU shuffles it onto private standards bodies.
Meanwhile, regulators are warned not to actually do anything, and care about unspecified, directionless innovation most of all, as will be clearer this afternoon as the UK's proposed data protection reforms are perhaps published in a Bill.
By my calculations, @officestudents' "unexpected" first class degrees model they calc grade inflation with uncritically expects a white, non-mature/disabled female law student to have a 40.5% chance of a First; the same Black student to have 15.4% chance. theguardian.com/education/2022…
The data is hidden in Table 6 of the annex to the report here officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/a… (requires you to add up the model estimates, do inverse log odds)
(I also used the 2020-21 academic year but you can choose your own)