I am absolutely disgusted by official publication by @bcs @BCS_Policy presenting issues around the NHS app under the heading of "Privacy vs lives saved". bcs.org/content-hub/th…
The original BCS position paper press release bcs.org/more/about-us/… was already dubious by talking about "perceived Big Brother elements" (perceived!), but this is really going too far.
Let me spell it out. Nobody raising privacy concerns around COVID apps is doing this out of the misguided idea that privacy is an absolute right that should ever come ahead of saving lives. Quite to the contrary.
Any COVID tracking app is *designed* to breach privacy: it needs to find people who are (potentially) infected in order to restrain their freedom of movement. If that isn't individuation and interfering with rights and freedoms, what is?
If it hypothetically wasn't clear on the ethical side, it is crystal clear on the legal side. One of the 10 (additional) preconditions for processing special category data in GDPR is 9(2)(i) "processing is necessary for reasons of public interest in the area of public health".
So when privacy researchers raise issues on COVID tracing apps, it is nothing to do with whether they agree with "saving lives" or not. Of course they do.
If this letter hadn't been as nuanced drive.google.com/file/d/1uB4LcQ… it wouldn't have received 200 signatories from UK academia.
If this letter hadn't been as nuanced drive.google.com/file/d/1uB4LcQ… it wouldn't have received 200 signatories from UK academia.
So the issues raised are of necessity, proportionality, effectiveness, accountability, transparency, safeguards, privacy by design.
I am disgusted at "my" professional organisation misrepresenting that position as "privacy vs saving lives".
I am disgusted at "my" professional organisation misrepresenting that position as "privacy vs saving lives".
Note that @bcs have removed the offending section from their "official BCS analysis" now. See
