...
A useful resource for efforts to build an Ethical Model:
https://www.mironov.com/ethics/
Comments/Links from Adam Hollowell (Unlicensed)
arXiv at Cornell University has a COVID-19 quick search that you may find useful if you haven’t encountered it yet.
https://blogs.cornell.edu/arxiv/2020/03/30/new-covid-19-quick-search/
Their database provided these articles relevant for ethics. Will read and follow up.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.13691.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.04343.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2004/2004.10236.pdf
This may be a helpful way of articulating what open source DCT providers to HAs should do if it is not clear that the HA is complying with the standards. I doubt you’d want to implement this “Hippocratic License” directly, but the concepts might help write a stated policy on HA misuse of DCT.
https://www.wired.com/story/open-source-license-requires-users-do-no-harm/
Re: Incentives, PathCheck is not research, but we could use human subject research ethics as a guideline for providing incentives principles to HAs that we work with. It would be fairly straightforward to write a statement of principles re: incentives that are distributed/required for partnering HAs. For example, Grant and Sugarman (2010) identify the following potential areas of problems for incentives in Human Subject Research: “Specifically, incentives become problematic when conjoined with the following factors, singly or in combination with one another: where the subject is in a dependency relationship with the researcher, where the risks are particularly high, where the research is degrading, where the participant will only consent if the incentive is relatively large because the participant’s aversion to the study is strong, and where the aversion is a principled one.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03605310490883046
On surveillance and protests re: DCT. The JHU student cites this article from April 29, 2020 but doesn’t do anything substantial with it in their report.
Matthew Guariglia, the author, has written a few other pieces since April that are helpful. We should keep an eye on his work and others at EFF as the protests continue to unfold in the US.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/how-identify-visible-and-invisible-surveillance-protests
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/dont-mix-policing-covid-19-contact-tracing
https://www.eff.org/issues/covid-19
One challenge under equity/fairness will be smartphone access. Only 81% of Americans own smartphones, so nearly 1 in 5 Americans won’t have access to DCTT in that way. That number may be higher or lower based on the other locations PathCheck serves. The JHU framework recommends “directing more non-DCTT resources and efforts toward those communities” where DCTT isn’t accessible. PathCheck obviously can’t take on the service of those communities, but you may have an ethical principle or recommendation to HAs not to overlook communities/individuals that don’t have smartphones. Part of indicating “Supportive” on this might include asking HAs to commit “analog” contact tracing resources to communities where smartphone usage is lower.