In the NHS’s 70th year, and as part of the push for digitisation, the introduction of an appointment-booking app has been praised, while a GP chatbot has been given the thumbs-down by The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP).

Book Appointments With A Free NHS App

A free app, due to be launched at the end of this year, will enable NHS patients to make GP appointments, order repeat prescriptions, and access the 111 helpline for urgent medical needs.

The app, which is being jointly developed by NHS Digital and NHS England, and is part of NHS England’s wider strategy to digitise the health service, will be made available through the App Store or Google.

Other Options

As well as booking appointments and ordering prescriptions, the app will also give patients other options such as allowing them to opt-out of sharing their personal information for research and planning purposes across the health service, mark their preferences on organ donation, and register their choices for end-of-life care.

Helpful

Many commentators have praised the idea of the app as something that could provide extra convenience to patients e.g. reducing the 8am scramble for GP appointments, and take some of the increasing load off some areas of the NHS.

Security Caution

Some commentators have stressed the need to ensure that the security, reliability, and the identity verification processes of the app are of the highest international security standards in order to protect the personal details and medical history of patients.

Big No for Doc App

While the NHS appointment-booking app has been receiving cautious praise, the new Babylon AI chatbot that can diagnose medical conditions (and offer health advice based on what users tell it) got the thumbs-down at an event held by The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP).

Accuracy?

One of the main aspects of the bot that upset physicians were claims by Babylon that the bot has achieved medical exam scores of the same level as or higher than a human doctor. The company says that according to its robust testing program, which includes relevant sections of the MRCGP exam, which is the final test for a trainee GP, Babylon’s AI bot’s average pass mark was 81%. This mark is higher than the 72% average pass mark achieved by real doctors over the past five years.

These claims have been disputed by RCGP, which has stressed the point that no app or algorithm is able to do what a GP does.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Apps are being used in useful and value-adding ways in so many other sectors, it is no surprise that they are being developed for healthcare, and with the purpose of taking some of the burden off the NHS. For most people, the NHS is s trusted organisation anyway, and an app that can essentially perform administrative functions, such as booking appointments, sounds as though it could be very useful. The trust that many have in the NHS may also be enough to minimise security concerns. One criticism may be, however, that it may exclude the older members of society, many of whom are regular users of NHS services.

Even though an AI app may be able to pass theoretical exams (such as the Babylon AI app) getting people to trust it to make a diagnosis and then health suggestions, particularly when it has been criticised by real doctors, may be a step too far at the current time. That particular app company, however, has faced criticism in the past over its ‘GP at Hand’ app for the NHS, which allows patients at five London clinics to consult with their GP via a video call. The RCGP criticised it for cherry-picking patients, and leaving GPs to deal with the most complex patients without sufficient resources.

Either way, the NHS is committed to digitising some aspects of its services, and in introducing technology, a balance needs to be struck between adding real value in a fair way to all, while not being to the detriment of any NHS users and practitioners.

The Google Forms Quiz in its free, browser-based educational software “Classroom” now features a “locked mode” on Chromebooks which prevents students from cheating during quizzes.

What Is ‘Classroom’?

Google Classroom is a free web service (app) for schools, non-profits or indeed anyone with a personal Google Account, that aims to simplify creating, distributing and grading assignments in a paperless way. It is reported to be used by over 30 million students globally.

Used in an actual educational setting, it enables teachers to ‘create’ classes (set up a class online), distribute assignments, communicate, and stay organised, all in one place. Teachers can invite students and co-teachers, and in the class stream, they can then share information, assignments, announcements, and questions. They can also see who has or hasn’t completed the work, and give direct, real-time feedback and grades.

Classroom works with Google Docs, Calendar, Gmail, Drive, and Forms.

What About Chromebooks?

In the context of this story, Chromebooks are laptops that are sold with the sole purpose of being used in the classroom. They run Google’s Chrome OS and are designed to be used while connected to the Internet, with most applications and documents stored in the cloud.

Cheating?

The problem that many teachers have reported experiencing is that in order to answer questions during Classroom quizzes and tests, some students are tempted to use the Internet connection on Chromebooks to look up the answers (also known as cheating).

Cheat-Proof Feature: Locked Mode

The newly added “locked mode” feature in the Google Forms Quiz prohibits students from surfing the web or opening apps until the answers are submitted. This is the first feature added to the app that’s exclusive to managed Chromebooks, and as such, it has meant that specialised controls have been added to what was basically a standardised system.

Other Features

Other features that have also been added include the ability to organise by topic or unit in the Classwork page, whereas everything was previously just categorised by date. Also, a new People page lets teachers add and remove fellow teachers, students and guardians. The Stream and system settings pages have also received some small improvements.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For educators and trainers who use the system, the “locked mode” gives them greater control, and allows them to get a more accurate view of the level of knowledge of their students. More accurate measurements can help with the better planning and application of teaching resources, and can highlight areas that need improvement.

For Google, with such a popular system that has made inroads into the teaching / training market, it makes sense to keep their customers loyal and happy by introducing value adding improvements that solve long-running problems.

Privacy groups have led calls to halt the blanket collection and storing of communications data in the EU area, and the creation and storing of the “audio signatures” of 5.1 million people by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

Collection of Communications Data

The privacy groups Privacy International, Liberty, and Open Rights Group, have filed complaints to the European Commission which call for EU governments to stop making companies collect and store all communications data. Their complaints have also been echoed by dozens of community groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and academics.

What’s The Problem?

The main complaint is that communications companies in EU states indiscriminately collect and retain all of our communications data. This includes the details of all calls, texts and so forth (i.e. who with, dates, times etc).

The privacy groups and their supporters argue that not only does this amount to a form of intrusive surveillance, but that the practice was actually ruled unlawful by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in two judgments in 2014 and 2016.

Privacy groups have expressed concern that some companies in some EU states have tried to circumvent the CJEU judgements, and the CJEU have clearly stated that general and indiscriminate retention of communications data is disproportionate and can’t be justified.

In the UK, for example, the intelligence agencies collect details of thousands of calls daily, but under the CJEU judgements, this amounts to breaking the law.

HMRC Collecting Recordings of Voices

Perhaps even more shocking is the news this week that, according to privacy group Big Brother Watch, the UK HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has a Voice ID system that has collected 5.1 million audio signatures.

The accusation is that HMRC is creating biometric ID cards or voiceprints by the back door. These voiceprints could conceivably be used by government agencies to identify UK citizens across other areas of their private lives.

Big Brother Watch has also expressed concern that customers are not given the choice to opt out of the use of this system.

Helpful and Secure

HMRC, which launched the Voice ID scheme last year, asks callers to repeat the phrase “my voice is my password” to register and access their tax details, and says that the system has been very popular with customers. HMRC has also said that the 5 million+ voice recordings that it already has are stored securely.

Privacy campaigners are calling for the deletion of the voiceprints that are currently stored, and for a different system to be implemented, or to at least allow customers to opt out of Voice ID and to be able to use an alternative method.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Businesses may be very aware, after having to adjust their own systems to be compliant to the recently introduced GDPR, that all EU citizens should now have more rights about what happens to their personal data. The term ‘personal data’ in the GDPR sense now covers things like our images on CCTV footage, and should, therefore, cover recordings of our personal conversations and biometric data such as recordings of our voices / voice prints / audio signatures.

While we may accept that there are arguments for monitoring our communications data e.g. fighting terrorism, many people clearly feel that the blanket collection of all communications data, not just that of suspects, is a step too far, is an invasion of privacy, and has echoes of ‘big brother’.

Biometrics e.g. using a fingerprint / face-print to access a phone or as part of security to access a bank account is now becoming more commonplace, and can be a helpful, more secure way of validating / authenticating access. Again, images of our faces, fingerprints, and our audio signatures (in the case of HMRC) are our personal data, and it is right that we would want them to be secure, and as with GDPR, that they are only used for the one purpose that we have given consent for, and not to be passed secretly among states and unknown agencies. Also, the ideas that we can opt in or opt out of systems, and are given a choice of which system we use i.e. not being forced to submit a voice recording, is an important issue, and one that many thought GDPR would address.

As more and more biometric systems come into use in the future, legislation will, no doubt, need to be updated again to take account of the changes.

It has been reported that financial market regulators from the US, the UK and Asia are pressing for an exemption from GDPR.

Growing Calls For Exemption

Even though GDPR only came into force a little over a month ago (May 25th), financial regulators from several countries, most notably the US, have been pressing over several years for an exemption to be built-in, and have hosted multiple meetings about the matter on both sides of the Atlantic.

What’s The Problem?

Before GDPR, financial regulators could use their exemption to share vital information e.g. bank and trading account data, to advance misconduct probes. Now that GDPR is in force, regulators are, therefore, arguing that no exemption means that international probes and enforcement actions in cases involving market manipulation and fraud could be hampered.

Regulators say that they are particularly concerned about the effects on U.S. investigations into crypto-currency fraud and market manipulation (for which many actors are based overseas) could be at risk. Without an exemption, regulators say that cross-border information sharing could be challenged because some countries’ privacy safeguards now fall short of those now offered by the EU under GDPR.

Seeking An “Administrative Arrangement”

The form of exemption that regulators are reported to be seeking is a formal “administrative arrangement” with the Brussels-based European Data Protection Board (EDPB), headed by Andrea Jelinek. The written arrangement would clarify if and how the public interest exemption can be applied to their cross-border information sharing.

Which Regulators?

Reports indicate that the regulators involved in discussions about getting an exemption include the EU’s European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), the Japan Financial Services Agency (FSA), Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC).

Why Not?

The worry from the EDPB is that granting exemptions could lead to the illegitimate circumventing and watering down of the new GDPR privacy safeguards, now among the toughest in the world. This, in turn, could lead to the harming EU citizens which is exactly the opposite of the reason for the introduction of GDPR.

The matter has, however, been complicated by the fact that regulators’ slow response to the 2007-2009 global financial crisis was partly blamed on poor cross-border coordination, which has since been improved, and better information sharing after the crisis is reported to have lead to billions of dollars in fines for banks e.g. for trying to rig Libor interest rate benchmarks.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

A financial crisis (e.g. involving bad behaviour by banks) can create serious knock-on costs and problems for businesses worldwide, and it is, therefore, possible to see why financial regulators feel they need an exemption so that they can continue to share information which will ultimately be in the interest of business and the public. It is likely, therefore, that discussions will continue for some time yet to try to find a way to grant exemptions in certain circumstances.

The contrary view is that granting exemptions will water down legislation that was designed to offer stronger protection to us all, potentially putting EU citizens at risk, and allowing organisations that we can’t effectively monitor to simply circumvent the new law and behave how they like. This could undermine the privacy and rights of EU citizens.

California-based vehicle tech corporation ‘Tesla’ is suing a former employee, who some saw simply as a Whistleblower, over alleged acts of industrial espionage.

Named

The former Tesla technician who stands accused by Tesla boss Elon Musk of industrial espionage has been named as Martin Tripp. The allegations made against Mr Tripp include that he was hacking and stealing company secrets, and that he wrote software that was designed to aid in the theft of photos and videos.

Tesla has also alleged that Mr Tripp was partly motivated to commit malicious acts against the company after he failed to get a promotion. Tesla has filed a federal lawsuit against him.

Tesla is also reported as saying that 40-year old forces veteran Tripp made false claims to the media about the information he (allegedly) stole, particularly where claims about punctured battery cells, excess scrap material and manufacturing delays are concerned.

Whistleblower?

Far from being an alleged criminal who meant the company harm, Mr Tripp claims that he is simply a Whistleblower who the company is trying to get rid of in order to cover up details about products / components that could damage the company’s reputation if they were known.

For example, Mr Tripp claims that he has simply been trying to expose “some really scary things” at Tesla, including punctured batteries being used in vehicles. Mr Tripp has also alleged that he became disillusioned with Tesla when (as he alleges) he saw how Elon Musk was lying to investors about how many cars they were making.

Mr Tripp has also been reported as saying that he didn’t write any software to aid the theft of photos and videos because he has no patience for coding, and that he didn’t care about failing to get a promotion.

Tripp is looking for legal protection as a whistleblower.

Silencing a Scapegoat?

Mr Tripp has been reported as saying that he is being made a scapegoat because he provided information that was true, that Tesla are doing everything they can to silence him, and that he feels that he had no rights as a whistleblower.

The local Sheriff’s office is reported as announcing that there is no credible threat to the Tesla’s lithium-ion battery factory, known as the Gigafactory.

Mr Tripp has been reported as saying that he allegedly turned whistleblower after his concerns were not taken seriously by anyone in the company.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

It would certainly not be unheard-of for a disgruntled employee / former employee to pose a security risk or commit acts of sabotage. For example, back in 2014, Andrew Skelton, who was an auditor at the head office of Morrisons (supermarket chain) in Bradford, leaked the personal details of almost 100,000 staff. Mr Skelton is believed to have deliberately stolen and leaked the data in a move to get back at the company after he was accused of dealing in legal highs at work.

We are also familiar with how difficult companies / organisations and other interested parties can make it for people who are ‘whistleblowers’ e.g. reports in the media about Dr Hayley Dare who received poison-pen letters was dismissed from a 20 year unblemished career with a 3 line email after raising concerns over a patient’s safety with her employer, an NHS Trust.

In the case of Tesla, it is currently not possible to say whether or not Mr Tripp is a whistleblower or a disgruntled former-employee with malicious intent. What it does remind us though is that corporate / company culture should be such that employees feel able to express their concerns, are listened to, and that it is viewed as a positive way to find areas to make improvements and modifications that could actually help a company in the long-run.

The Tesla story should also remind companies to plug some basic security loopholes in IT systems when employees leave / are dismissed. This includes simply changing passwords, access rights, and monitoring systems to ensure that nothing untoward is happening.