This epidemic is another good example of where the individual consent model for privacy fails. If we want to use cell phone tracking to track the potential spread of infection, we have to impose that on the population, and people can't be allowed to opt out
-
Show this thread
-
There are also monumental privacy and civil liberties costs associated to this kind of tracking. You can think of it as similar to forced quarantine: a situation where an overriding health emergency, by public consent, is enough to curtail people's freedoms for a limited time
2 replies 4 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
But this model doesn't work when the "limited time" part is not available. Cell phone records and user location data, as well as derived information from that (like machine learning models) are currently stored in perpetuity by private actors, with almost zero regulation
1 reply 6 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
If we want the ability to make full use of large-scale technical surveillance for things like slowing an epidemic (and we do!), then we need a 'peacetime' regulatory framework for the surveillance economy that is far stricter about limiting data retention, resale, and so on
3 replies 17 retweets 56 likesShow this thread -
Otherwise people will correctly perceive these attempts as a ratchet effect to further erode online privacy. In a situation where legal protection is defined by concepts like 'reasonable expectation of privacy', rather than strict objective limits, surveillance powers only go up
2 replies 6 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
This leaves us in a frustrating position where we have the technical infrastructure for unprecedented contagion tracking, but there is no way for democratic governments to credibly reassure people that the tracking will be used only for this one purpose, and do no lasting harm
5 replies 26 retweets 101 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
This is well put. I had previously shied away from location tracking for digital epi because of privacy concerns. My calculus has shifted with the pandemic and I now believe the societal benefits to connecting COVID status to location data outweigh the costs for the time being.
12 replies 19 retweets 104 likes -
The problem comes when a tool used to prevent pandemics is later used by big data and government for nefarious purposes. It can't be always on, waiting for the next epidemic (or popular uprising).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whizdaddy @trvrb
The problem is, it already is on—all the data required is being collected and stored, mostly by private industry. This surveillance economy is part of an adversarial business model that makes consumers less likely to tolerate legitimate emergency use of the data
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I agree that my location and online activity are always tracked, but is there really a database out there which contains information on every phone which came within 6 feet of mine for more than 5 minutes? Because this could be a dangerous tool.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, there are cell tower records that have this data, and the large tech companies do, too. Not to within 6 feet of precision, but pretty close to it.
-
-
That's really horrible. What on earth were they using it for? If tracking of the proximity of one phone to others is already being done, then there is no point in objecting to an app that might do some good. But we need better privacy laws.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.