![\"Women](\"https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/GettyImages-953778398.jpg?w=730&crop=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A UK parliamentary committee<\/a> that focuses on human rights issues has called for primary legislation to be put in place to ensure that legal protections wrap around the national coronavirus contact tracing app.<\/p>\n The app, called NHS COVID-19, is being fast tracked for public use — with a test ongoing this week in the Isle of Wight. It’s set to use Bluetooth Low Energy signals to log social interactions between users to try to automate some contacts tracing based on an algorithmic assessment of users’ infection risk.<\/p>\n The NHSX has said the app could be ready for launch within a matter of weeks but the committee says key choices related to the system architecture create huge risks for people’s rights that demand the safeguard of primary legislation.<\/p>\n “Assurances from Ministers about privacy are not enough. The Government has given assurances about protection of privacy so they should have no objection to those assurances being enshrined in law,” said committee chair, Harriet Harman MP, in a statement.<\/p>\n “The contact tracing app involves unprecedented data gathering. There must be robust legal protection for individuals about what that data will be used for, who will have access to it and how it will be safeguarded from hacking.<\/p>\n “Parliament was able quickly to agree to give the Government sweeping powers. It is perfectly possible for parliament to do the same for legislation to protect privacy.”<\/p>\n The NHSX, a digital arm of the country’s National Health Service, <\/a> is in the process of testing the app — which it’s said could be launched nationally within a few weeks.<\/p>\n The government has opted for a system design that will centralize large amounts of social graph data when users experiencing COVID-19 symptoms (or who have had a formal diagnosis) choose to upload their proximity logs.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n Earlier this week<\/a> we reported on one of the committee hearings — when it took testimony from NHSX CEO Matthew Gould and the UK’s information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, among other witnesses.<\/p>\n Warning now over a lack of parliamentary scrutiny — around what it describes as an unprecedented expansion of state surveillance — the committee report calls for primary legislation to ensure “necessary legal clarity and certainty as to how<\/span> data gathered could be used, stored and disposed of”.<\/span><\/p>\n The committee also wants to see an independent body set up to carry out oversight monitoring and guard against ‘mission creep’ — a <\/span>concern that’s also been raised by a number of UK privacy and security experts in an open letter late last month<\/a>.<\/p>\n “A Digital Contact Tracing Human Rights Commissioner should be responsible for oversight and they should be able to deal with complaints from the Public and report to Parliament,” the committee suggests.<\/p>\n Prior to publishing its report, the committee wrote to health minister Matt Hancock, <\/a> raising a full spectrum of concerns — receiving a letter<\/a> in response.<\/p>\n In this letter, dated May 4, Hancock told it: “We do not consider that legislation is necessary in order to build and deliver the contact tracing app. It is consistent with the powers of, and duties imposed on, the Secretary of State at a time of national crisis in the interests of protecting public health.”<\/p>\n The committee’s view is Hancock’s ‘letter of assurance’ is not enough given the huge risks attached to the state tracking citizens’ social graph data.<\/p>\n “The current data protection framework is contained in a number of different documents and it is nearly impossible for the public to understand what it means for their data which may be collected by the digital contact tracing system. Government’s assurances around data protection and privacy standards will not carry any weight unless the Government is prepared to enshrine these assurances in legislation,” it writes in the report, calling for a bill that it says myst include include a number of “provisions and protections”.<\/p>\n Among the protections the committee is calling for are limits on who has access to data and for what purpose.<\/p>\n “Data held centrally may not be accessed or processed without specific statutory authorisation, for the purpose of combatting Covid-19 and provided adequate security protections are in place for any systems on which this data may be processed,” it urges.<\/p>\n It also wants legal protections against data reconstruction — by different pieces of data being combined “to reconstruct information about an individual”.<\/p>\n The report takes a very strong line — warning that no app should be released without “strong protections and guarantees” on “efficacy and proportionality”.<\/p>\n “Without clear efficacy and benefits of the app, the level of data being collected will be not be justifiable and it will therefore fall foul of data protection law and human rights protections,” says the committee.<\/p>\n The report also calls for regular reviews of the app — looking at efficacy; data safety; and “how privacy is being protected in the use of any such data”.<\/p>\n It also makes a blanket call for transparency, with the committee writing that the government and health authorities “must at all times be transparent about how the app, and data collected through it, is being used”.<\/p>\n A lack of transparency around the project was another of the concerns raised by the 177 academics who signed the open letter last month.<\/p>\n The government has committed to publishing data protection impact assessments for the app. But the ICO’s Denham still hadn’t had sight of this document as of this Monday<\/a>.<\/p>\n Another call by the committee is for a time-limit to be attached to any data gathered by or generated via the app. “Any digital contact tracing (and data associated<\/span> with it) must be permanently deleted when no longer required<\/span> and in any event may not be kept beyond the<\/span> duration of the public health emergency,” it writes.<\/span><\/p>\n We’ve reached out to the Department of Health and NHSX for comment on the human rights committee’s report.<\/p>\n Let’s go through Matt Hancock’s letter to @<\/span>HarrietHarman<\/span><\/a> @<\/span>HumanRightsCtte<\/span><\/a> on the NHSX app and take a closer look at some of these statements 1\/ https:\/\/<\/span>twitter.com\/humanrightsctte\/status\/1257669688106143746 <\/span>…<\/a><\/p>\n We have received a response from @<\/span>MattHancock<\/span> @<\/span>DHSCgovuk<\/span> on the Government’s plans to use digital technologies. #<\/span>COVID\u30fc19<\/span> <\/p>\n Read the letter here <\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pbs.twimg.com\/profile_images\/1012417468483203074\/TtouwybY_normal.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\nMichael Veale<\/span><\/span>@mikarv<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n\n\n\nUK Parliament Human Rights Committee<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/div>\n![\"\u2714\"](\"https:\/\/s.w.org\/images\/core\/emoji\/11.2.0\/72x72\/2714.png\")
<\/strong><\/span><\/span>@HumanRightsCtte<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n![\"👇\"](\"https:\/\/abs.twimg.com\/emoji\/v2\/72x72\/1f447.png\" "\\"Down")
https:\/\/<\/span>publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/jt5801\/jtselect\/jtrights\/correspondence\/200504-Response-from-Matt-Hancock-MP-regarding-Governments-plan-to-use-digital-technologies.pdf <\/span>…<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n