England & Wales Tracing App to be released Sept 24th

[Huntergreed]

All of those would be considered discriminatory. The downside is that to get enforcement, you basically need to sue.

However, as smartphones are available to people of all ages that doesn't count as one. If they didn't provide for people who physically can't use a smartphone due to a disability, then there would be a case to answer. But they don't, legally, have to answer to refuseniks.

Interesting, so do you agree that businesses that refuse service to those without a mask on are technically discriminating and should be held accountable for doing so?

More on topic: What stops someone downloading the app, checking in, then deleting it every time they leave, surely they couldn't possibly get contacted by T+T?

 

[Scrotnig]

Given that you can turn off the Bluetooth contact tracing bit, and given that some form of T&T is mandatory, I would suggest anyone who simply elects not to download but has a capable device it is just being stubborn and should not be accommodated.

As I have said before in life, I will put myself out for "can'ts", but "won'ts" get nothing beyond that to which they are legally entitled.

Crikey, and I don't suggest this, if you really object to it you can download it and delete your scans each day.

Or you could just not have it in the first place, thus removing any danger of misuse of your data by the government.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting, so do you agree that businesses that refuse service to those without a mask on are technically discriminating and should be held accountable for doing so?

If they don't make other reasonable adjustments, then yes. An example of a reasonable adjustment might be, if it's a small shop where compensatory 2m distancing could not be achieved, to serve that person outside, or to ask them to wait for a short while while the customers in the shop left then have them in the shop alone. Some smaller petrol stations are doing this by serving non-wearers (whatever the reason for not wearing) through the night hatch, including going to get stuff from the shop for them if they want, as they do when using the hatch at night.

More on topic: What stops someone downloading the app, checking in, then deleting it every time they leave, surely they couldn't possibly get contacted by T+T?

Nothing, but most people aren't going to do that.

Or you could just not have it in the first place, thus removing any danger of misuse of your data by the government.

They don't have your data to misuse it, it's stored on the phone. Also, the app does not contain any personal data so they can't tie it to you anyway.

 

[Scrotnig]

If they don't make other reasonable adjustments, then yes. An example of a reasonable adjustment might be, if it's a small shop where compensatory 2m distancing could not be achieved, to serve that person outside, or to ask them to wait for a short while while the customers in the shop left then have them in the shop alone.

Treat them like lepers, in other words.

They don't have your data to misuse it, it's stored on the phone. Also, the app does not contain any personal data so they can't tie it to you anyway.

So it should surely be no problem to anyone if people choose not to use it and wish to use other methods to provide their contact details.

Plus, forgive me for not believing a single word the current government says about any of this.

 

[WestRiding]

As mentioned on the other thread, the government website with instructions for businesses clearly states that they “must not” refuse service to people who cannot, do not, or will not use the NHS app and should collect contact details from them in the same way as previous.

Thanks, where might this be found?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So it should surely be no problem to anyone if people choose not to use it and wish to use other methods to provide their contact details.

That creates work for an already beleagured business, so forgive them if they decide that they do not want your custom if you are refusing out of pure stubbornness. Or you could make their life easy, download the app, scan it then once you leave sneakily delete the check-in if you really must. (Not that I support doing this, I'm using it properly).

 

[trebor79]

b) I cannot justify the cost (£400-800 for the phone itself then £20 a month for data/calls/texts)

Whaaaat? My Motorola G6+ costs me the princely sum of £14 a month, for all the data an calls I am likely to use. Nothing up front at all.

 

[Scrotnig]

That creates work for an already beleagured business, so forgive them if they decide that they do not want your custom if you are refusing out of pure stubbornness. Or you could make their life easy, download the app, scan it then once you leave sneakily delete the check-in if you really must. (Not that I support doing this, I'm using it properly).

Then they'd better be ready to lose my custom and I daresay many others.

There are plenty of places that don't operate like this, so it's no skin off my nose. Let's hope losing such a large swathe of custom is no skin off theirs, otherwise their business ceases to be beleaguered and becomes bust.

 

[ainsworth74]

Treat them like lepers, in other words.

Anyone who felt that way should take court against such a business to ensure they receive any compensation they may be due and the business in question is properly punished for their actions. Meanwhile in the real world reasonable adjustments are a thing which works, for the most part, well for all concerned when it comes to balancing the needs and abilities of businesses to adjust to accommodate those who need such adjustments whilst coping with financial or legal restrictions imposed upon the business.

I have to say on a more general point I find it bizarre the level of witchhuntyness and general desire to see any business which offends the sensibilities of those who don't like masks and/or apps* to be closed down (and jobs lost) that pervades this Forum at the present time.

*Subject to businesses making those reasonable adjustments. A business which just has a blanket "you must use the app we don't care about why you can't" or "you must wear a face mask we don't care if say you have exemption" has considerably less sympathy from me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are plenty of places that don't operate like this, so it's no skin off my nose. Let's hope losing such a large swathe of custom is no skin off theirs, otherwise their business ceases to be beleaguered and becomes bust.

The thing is that it's not a large swathe of custom. Most people have smartphones, and most people don't object to this reasonable measure, or realise that they can always install it and delete the check-ins if they want.

This is just like businesses refusing cash payments, which seems to have been accepted quietly, just like I thought it would be, because very near everybody has a payment card, and everybody can get one (pre-paid).

 

[WelshBluebird]

Then they'd better be ready to lose my custom and I daresay many others.

There are plenty of places that don't operate like this, so it's no skin off my nose. Let's hope losing such a large swathe of custom is no skin off theirs, otherwise their business ceases to be beleaguered and becomes bust.

You are assuming you and others like you are "large swathes of custom" for these places that don't offer an alternative though. In reality you may well just be a few percentage points of their custom.
In my experience most people will just download the app and use it, maybe moan about it a little but still.
Hell for most people it is likely easier and quicker than what was the case last week (where depending on where you went, you either had to use an app specific for the place / chain you were going to, or scan a QR code and manually enter your details on a website, or write down your details on paper - now you just quickly scan a QR code and you are done).
If the numbers posted by another person earlier are right, 10 million out of 65 million in less than a week really isn't bad going IMO.

 

[Scrotnig]

Anyone who felt that way should take court against such a business to ensure they receive any compensation they may be due and the business in question is properly punished for their actions. Meanwhile in the real world reasonable adjustments are a thing which works, for the most part, well for all concerned when it comes to balancing the needs and abilities of businesses to adjust to accommodate those who need such adjustments whilst coping with financial or legal restrictions imposed upon the business.

I have to say on a more general point I find it bizarre the level of witchhuntyness and general desire to see any business which offends the sensibilities of those who don't like masks and/or apps* to be closed down (and jobs lost) that pervades this Forum at the present time.

*Subject to businesses making those reasonable adjustments. A business which just has a blanket "you must use the app we don't care about why you can't" or "you must wear a face mask we don't care if say you have exemption" has considerably less sympathy from me.

I don't wish any to close down, though I fear that's a possible outcome for some. My stance is simply that I won't use them. I won't download an untrusted and potentially ivasive government app simply in order to be able to spend money with said business. If they don't like that their only option is to accept they won't get my business again, ever. If I'm the only one taking that stance, they won;t care. If large portions of their customer base take that stance, it could get tricky for them. However, it's not my problem if they take an inflexible, authoritarian stance on things.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't wish any to close down, though I fear that's a possible outcome for some. My stance is simply that I won't use them. I won't download an untrusted and potentially ivasive government app simply in order to be able to spend money with said business. If they don't like that their only option is to accept they won't get my business again, ever. If I'm the only one taking that stance, they won;t care. If large portions of their customer base take that stance, it could get tricky for them. However, it's not my problem if they take an inflexible, authoritarian stance on things.

And it is your choice, regrettably, to remove yourself from wide swathes of society as a result. That will be to your disadvantage, not theirs. As everyone's favourite Irish airline knows, losing the odd customer is no skin off their nose, and your opinion is firmly in the minority.

Isn't the app open-source, anyway? You can read the codebase if you want (or get someone you trust to do so) to ensure it's not nefarious.

 

[WelshBluebird]

However, it's not my problem if they take an inflexible, authoritarian stance on things.

You realise that isn't why some places are taking this stance right?
They are just doing it because it is easier for them.

 

[Scrotnig]

You are assuming you and others like you are "large swathes of custom" though.

I'm sure I'm not alone. Maybe people like me won;t account for much custom. The businesses concerned will need to hope so.
Regardless, it's no skin off my nose. There will always be competing businsesses wwho take a more flexible approach, and they will get my business.

Until, of course, the government take it a step further (as I'm sure they will at some point) and make use of the app mandatory. Then I just won't go in pubs or restaurants at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You realise that isn't why some places are taking this stance right?
They are just doing it because it is easier for them.

Exactly. And someone with respect for the challenges these businesses pose will just download it and use it and make their life easier, even if they go and clear it every night so they're not actually contact traced or delete individual check-ins, and leave the Bluetooth tracing off (it's switchable in the app). It's been explained multiple times that there are a couple of ways to do this if you want. It's probably not legal, but because of how the app works it's probably not enforceable.

It's probably too much to expect people to buy a compliant smartphone if they don't have one, but if you do already have one it's quite selfish not to use it, really.

I'm sure I'm not alone

You aren't, but you are in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. Maybe double or triple figures across the country, I reckon, definitely not more than four figures. (I'm talking people who have a compliant smartphone but refuse to use the app, rather than people who don't have a compliant phone and can't afford/justify the cost of a new one).

 

[Scrotnig]

And it is your choice, regrettably, to remove yourself from wide swathes of society as a result. That will be to your disadvantage, not theirs.

Not really. Have only gone in one pub since all this started. Used to go more often, mainly for meals. Cook my own now, or have one delivered. If however plenty of people won;t use the app, there could be a problem. Maybe everyone in the country will use it except me. I still won't go in if I have to use it. Neither the government nor any pub chain is gaining control over my phone.

Isn't the app open-source, anyway? You can read the codebase if you want (or get someone you trust to do so) to ensure it's not nefarious.

Don't care what's in the code. Code can change. A new release can change the purpose and functionality of the app at any time and once it's on there I won't even know. It's already been updated once.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Neither the government nor any pub chain is gaining control over my phone.

Having the app is no where near "giving control" of your phone to the government or the pub chain.
Can we please stop the hyperbole?
Regardless of if you agree or disagree with the app - use of such phrases is just not useful to the discussion when they are categorically not true.

 

[Scrotnig]

You aren't, but you are in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority.

That's fine. It presumably won't bother these pubs to turn my business away. It certainly won't bother me to make sure I never use that specific pub ever again.

It's just, to listen to them, I thought they were on their knees and desperate for all the trade they could get. Obviously not. I might write to Mr Sunak and ask why we spent millions in August helping them out.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It's just, to listen to them, I thought they were on their knees and desperate for all the trade they could get.

Again you are assuming you have much more impact than what you, as an individual person, have.
You deciding to not spend £20 in a pub is going to make zero difference to that pub in reality.
Sure, if a large amount of people also share your opinion that is where it may make a difference. But in reality it isn't that many people.
And if a pub does start to see it being more people than they expect not wanting to use the app - they can change their policy!

 

[Scrotnig]

Having the app is no where near "giving control" of your phone to the government or the pub chain.

Yes it is. They are dictating to me what app I have to have on my phone in order to use their business. The answer is - no!

By all means offer it, indeed it's mandatory to. But also offer an alternative for those who are not blasé about such matters.

Sure, if a large amount of people also share your opinion that is where it may make a difference. But in reality it isn't that many people.

Neither of us know how large the group of people who can't or won;t comply might be.

And if a pub does start to see it being more people than they expect not wanting to use the app - they can change their policy!

Having alienated me and treated me like a leper - it'll be too late!

 

[Darandio]

Neither the government nor any pub chain is gaining control over my phone.

I've been in agreement with everything you have said so far, but this is getting into silliness again.

 

[Scrotnig]

You realise that isn't why some places are taking this stance right?
They are just doing it because it is easier for them.

And it's easier for me to find a different pub / restaurant!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes it is. They are dictating to me what app I have to have on my phone in order to use their business. The answer is - no!

By all means offer it, indeed it's mandatory to. But also offer an alternative for those who are not blasé about such matters.

Again, it is not "taking over your phone" or whatever you think. It is having an app on your phone. That is all. It does not take control of your phone in any way.
As for being blase about such matters - quite the contrary. I trust an open source app that does not send my data to anywhere but my phone much more than I trust individual businesses owners to have proper data protection procedures in place!

One again, I really do ask how many places are we talking about here?
I suspect the number of establishments who don't offer any alternative is actually quite low, so this whole thread is probably a moot point in the grand scheme of things!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes it is. They are dictating to me what app I have to have on my phone in order to use their business. The answer is - no!

By all means offer it, indeed it's mandatory to. But also offer an alternative for those who are not blasé about such matters.

Either "are stubborn" or "are paranoid" would be better words than "aren't blasé". This really is hyperbole. It's been explained how you could work around this, and I believe you have a suitable phone (right?), and yet you won't. So you want to create work for people for no good reason.

I'm sorry, but I would decline your business.

 

[Scrotnig]

I've been in agreement with everything you have said so far, but this is getting into silliness again.

But they ARE gaining control - slowly but surely - by building up the indea that it will become harder to participate in everyday life unless we install their app.

This needs to be resisted - otherwise, it will not go away once this is all over, it will be kept on and pushed into more scenarios.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they ARE gaining control - slowly but surely - by building up the indea that it will become harder to participate in everyday life unless we install their app.

They can already see where you've been by checking your payment card records. Or do you always pay cash for everything, get paid cash by your employer, and hide it under the bed?

This is for a specific purpose, there's literally no point keeping it for other purposes.

This needs to be resisted - otherwise, it will not go away once this is all over, it will be kept on and pushed into more scenarios.

I can't see that it will, I think you're being paranoid. Given the above, there isn't really anything you could apply it to. Flu is symptomatic, for example, so it'd be no use for that. And if they want to investigate crime, see my point above.

 

[island]

Thanks, where might this be found?

As I said, see the other thread on this. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-to-be-released-sept-24th.209098/post-4792116

 

[ainsworth74]

As I said, see the other thread on this. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-to-be-released-sept-24th.209098/post-4792116

Just a footnote to this for anyone reading later the threads have now been merged together.

 

[WelshBluebird]

As I said, see the other thread on this. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-to-be-released-sept-24th.209098/post-4792116

Fair enough! Consider myself corrected!
I do still ask the question how many places are trying to just use the app though, as the places I have been to or seen their policies are pushing people to the app first but offering an alternative if needed. I suspect there has been a lot of noise made about relatively little in that regard.