Ethics Principles/Questions from Nature Article

Owned by Diarmid Mackenzie
May 30, 2020
3 min read

“Ethical guidelines for COVID-19 tracing apps” - published in Nature 28 May 2020.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01578-0

In comparison to the John Hopkins MUSE paper here these didn’t seem as deeply considered or nuanced, and the principles are offered with little commentary justifying them. And the illustrations tend to be highly prescriptive on the positive side, and unhelpfully extreme on the negative side.

Nevertheless, here are the guidelines offered. We may be expected to provide answers to these questions. Some are strightforward, others a little less so (as much to do with issues with the questions and illustrative examples, as our solutions). In general I’d suggestwe redirect people towards answers on the John Hopkins MUSE ethical considerations instead.



GUIDELINES: IS THIS CONTACT-TRACING APP ETHICALLY JUSTIFIABLE?

Those responsible for contact-tracing apps should answer the following.

Principles: is this the right app to develop?

1. Is it necessary?

  • Yes, it must be developed to save lives (+).

  • No, there are better solutions (–).

2. Is it proportionate?

  • Yes, the gravity of the situation justifies the potential negative impact (+).

  • No, the potential negative impact is disproportionate to the situation (–).

3. Is it sufficiently effective, timely, popular and accurate?

  • Yes, evidence shows that it will work, is timely, will be adopted by enough people and yields accurate data and insights (+).

  • No, it does not work well, is available too late or too early, will not be used widely, and is likely to collect data that have false positives and/or false negatives (–).

4. Is it temporary?

  • Yes, there is an explicit and reasonable date on which it will cease (+).

  • No, it has no defined end date (–).

Requirements: is this app being developed in the right way?

5. Is it voluntary?

  • Yes, it is optional to download and install (+).

  • No, it is mandatory and people can be penalized for non-compliance (–).

6. Does it require consent?

  • Yes, people have complete choice over what data are shared and when, and can change this at any time (+).

  • No, default settings are to share everything all the time, and this cannot be altered (–).

7. Are the data kept private and users’ anonymity preserved?

  • Yes, data are anonymous and held only on the user’s phone. Others who have been in contact are notified only that there is a risk of contagion, not from whom or where. Methods such as differential privacy are used to ensure this. Cyber-resilience is high (+).

  • No, data are (re)identifiable owing to the level of data collected, and stored centrally. Locations of contacts are also available. Cyber-resilience is low (–).

8. Can users erase the data?

  • Yes, they can do so at will; all data are deleted at the end point (+).

  • No, there is no provision for data deletion, nor a guarantee that it can ever be deleted (–).

9. Is the purpose of data collection defined?

  • Yes, explicitly; for example, to alert users that they have encountered a potentially infected person (+).

  • No, the purposes of data collection are not explicitly defined (–).

10. Is the purpose limited?

  • Yes, it is used for tracing and tracking of COVID-19 only (+).

  • No, it can be regularly updated to add extra features that extend its functionality (–).

11. Is it used only for prevention?

  • Yes, it is used only to enable people voluntarily to limit spread (+).

  • No, it is also used as a passport to enable people to claim benefits or return to work (–).

12. Is it used for compliance?

  • No, it is not used to enforce behaviour (+).

  • Yes, non-compliance can result in punishment such as a fine or jail time (–).

13. Is it open-source?

  • Yes, the code is publicly available for inspection, sharing and collaborative improvement (+).

  • No, the source code is proprietary, and no information about it is provided (–).

14. Is it equally available?

  • Yes, it is free and distributed to anyone (+).

  • No, it is arbitrarily given only to some (–).

15. Is it equally accessible?

  • Yes, it is user-friendly, even for naive users, and works on the widest possible range of mobile phones (+).

  • No, it can be used only by those with specific devices and with sufficient digital education (–).

16. Is there a decommissioning process?

  • Yes, there is a process for shutting it down (+).

  • No, there are no policies in place (–).