Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Power in Contact Tracing Apps

=Feedback= This section provides a space for group members to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement. It is organised in the same structure as the wikibook.

Introduction
The introduction to the concept of contact-tracing apps itself looks great. We discussed that it would also be helpful to introduce the concept of power in this section and how it applies to the discussion to ensure that we do not lose focus of the main interdisciplinary issue. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The implementation of contact-tracing apps is a complex interdisciplinary issue relying on collaboration between experts across disciplines. Naturally, power dynamics between disciplinary fields come into play as different actors attempt to influence the design of the app and how it is implemented in society. This is particularly relevant to the privacy versus effectiveness debate (ie. to what extent can privacy be compromised to provide more personal data and therefore enable a more effective track and trace system?).

We have identified three disciplines, all of which play a key role in this debate and contribute to interdisciplinarhy tension as contradictory perspectives arise on how best to approach the trade-off between privacy and effectiveness:

1. Technology/ Computer Science: scientists (people working directly on the technology of the apps) are generally held in high authority and their "expert" advice has the power to influence the privacy vs effectiveness debate through the suggestion that certain compromises on privacy are necessary to make the technology work effectively. Privacy is not likey to be their main concern since they will generally be looking at the issue from a purely technological/pragmatic perspective.

2. Sociology: a sociological perspective on the issue holds significant power, as policy-makers' understanding of how citizens will respond to the app factors into decision-making. Trust is a key factor here.

3. Law: law obviously holds power - governments cannot take actions that do not abide by the law. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I made a few small edits on the introduction and cut some sentences to make it flow better and introduce the interdisciplinarity tension in a more straightforward way. Let me know if there are any other changes you would make. --Fantomasque (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

part to be removed and added to the main paragraphs about each discipline
Currently there is a battle around the point at which the development and effectiveness of contact tracing apps meet the protection of digital rights and privacy.

On one side of this debate, many argue from a scientific point of view. Research efforts, advancements in technology to combat the pandemic or any other health threats, are restrained by limitations on privacy and accessing certain data despite their purpose of improving safety and defense. In regards to epidemiological research, there aren’t many other resources scientists can base their studies on other than population-based data. Thus, it is an important issue from the scientific point of view as this takes a major toll on the effectiveness of any measure implemented. If we want contact tracing apps to be efficient they have to be almost omnipresent because if only a small proportion of the population uses them, then they are pointless and can even be damaging: not only would the data be incorrect but it could lead to a false sense of safety or danger. In spite of all this, application developers and researchers are faced with legal as well as sociological drawbacks.

On the other side of the debate, some believe that contact tracing apps are a breach of our digital rights. This argument is established through disciplines such as law and sociology. Individuals value the protection of their right to privacy. Thus many people apprehend, through the implementation of these apps, the type of data they will collect and fear the risk of mission creep. However, despite this sentiment being universal, it is not always regarded the same way by policy makers. Indeed, governments rely mainly on the response of the population to determine their approach when implementing the app. In Asia, countries tend to impose the apps on its citizens, as well as using card transaction records and surveillance camera footage. This helps greatly with containing the spread of the virus, but has a serious cost on people’s rights to privacy. European countries are considered more « privacy-conscious » which also comes with a lot of skepticism from the people towards their government and the use of their data. Consequently, very low rates of usage of these applications have been observed, culminating at 34% in Ireland.

In that sense, a dynamic of competition appears between the two approaches. --Fantomasque (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Technology
The latent dimension of power seems the most relevant here (see the table from the lectures). We hold scientists in high regard and the scientific perspective on any issue would generally be considered relatively authoritative. Consider Borris Johnson's claims that the UK policy-makers are "following the science" - science has the power to justify government actions, and this is especially relevant to the use of personal data in contact tracing apps.Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thus, the scientific perspective "excersises power over [decision-makers] by influencing, shaping or determining [citizens' and governments'] very wants" (adapted quote on latent dimension of power from the lecture slides). Our "wants" in relation to the privacy of our personal data may change in response to learning about the necessity of this data for creating effective technology.Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I found some research articles about the power scientists and experts in a particular field like: https://www.jstor.org/stable/284554?seq=1 and a book about 'technology triumphalism' called 'Creativity, Problem Solving, and Aesthetics in Engineering: Today's Engineers Turning Dreams Into Reality'. This book also mentions how sometimes scientists think that technology can solve all problems as long as they can convince the public that they are right. I think this is a clear example of latent power which I will definitely mention in the technology section! PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sociology
A useful point to make here might be that power manifests as resource dependency (look into Emerson's research, as cited in the lectures), where citizens' trust is the resource which governments and policy-makers rely on (ie. without trust in the ability of the app to respect their privacy rights, citizens will not download the app, and the entire track and trace system will therefore be rendered ineffective). Therefore, citizens have power over officials, forcing them to consider privacy concerns as an integral part of the process of implementing contact-tracing apps. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Highlight the differences in different countries' apps as evidence for the significant role a sociological understanding of the issue plays in what the apps look like and how they are implemented. The shift from centralised to de-centralised is also really helpful evidence we discussed using here. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, we could circle back to the scientific perspective here for a more well-rounded consideration of the issue - promoting an understanding/ awareness of the science definitely influences citizens themselves, making them more accepting of breaches of privacy because they understand its necessity and respect the authority of science. This in turn allows governments to compromise more on privacy by harnessing the power of science. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree with all the points here!! Another thing to add on is how sociologists or people interested in promoting data privacy is how they speak the language of scientists as they talk about the effectiveness of the app if no one downloads it if they think it's not private enough. PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely! This is a really good point because language has so much power in terms of influencung our understanding, and it is a tool that can be used to harness the authority of science. We should definitely refer to the language that policy-makers and the media use to talk about the issue. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I made the argument that sociology has power, but I'm worried that maybe this doesn't make sense, especially if we are talking power in terms of resource dependency, since it's the citizens that hold the resource of trust, not the discipline of sociology itself. Yes, a consideration of the issue from a sociological perspective has the capacity to influence the debate, but I may need to revisit this argument and clarify a bit. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that trust is a form of resource that scientists are dependent on for their contact tracing solutions to work.

Edited the part on sociology to change the flow of the section and reduce word count! Let me know what you think. PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I just read through this new version of the sociology paragraph - I think the more condensed structure works well and I only made a small edit on the sentence about sociologists wielding power in terms of resource dependency. HotelBudapest (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Law
Policy-makers are restricted by legal considerations. Even if the sociological perspective suggests that citizens would be prepared to accept certain breaches of privacy, the legal perspective represents another obstactle, suggesting that law as a discipline holds significant power over the debate. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Only to a certain extent though, because law is contestable and open to interpreatation. The legal concepts of necessity and proportionality and key here - as long as you can prove that the use of this data is necessary, it does not breach the right to protection of personal data (eg. according to EU law). This is where the scientific perspective has power again, because it is up to them to provide the evidence for this necessity... Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Like the sociological perspective, it also depends on national context. Laws differ by country - look into South Korean government's ability to overturn privacy laws in times of crisis as evidence. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Power as decision-making, overt coersion? (Robert Dahl)

I've written the law section, but I'm worried it doesn't read very coherently. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? I think we may need some clarification on the concept of necessity and its relevance to our argument. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
Governments have decision-making power (overt), but these decisions are influenced by their consideration of legal constraints, as well as by an understanding of the sociological factors that will influences citizens' response to the system within a particular society. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Does this lead to a push-and-pull that results in a relatively balanced power dynamic between privacy and effectiveness, as both sides of the debate have significant representation?Obviously the resulting balance of power differs between societies, but ultimately is a balance between what is necessary for an effective contact-tracing system and what citizens are prepared to accept reached? There has been strong criticism of the NHS app, for example, suggesting that citizens may be prepared to compromise for personal data than the law currently permits, so maybe not... leave this an open question in the conclusion? Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I edited the conclusion to cut down on word count, do let me know what you think! PerpetualMisfit (discuss • contribs) 04:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks great! I don't think we've lost any of the original points at all. Ridumdepiro (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

21 Nov
Wikibooks Topic Ideas:
 * Abortion
 * Power in gun control
 * OJ Simpson
 * Power in Education
 * Feminism
 * History of race

23 Nov
Met in person to brainstorm the topic of contact-tracing apps.


 * Narrowed the topic down to the privacy vs. effectiveness debate surrounding contact tracing apps
 * Attemped to identify interdisciplinary tension: the power dynamics between disciplines as they collaborate on interdisciplinary apps and navigate the comprimise between the effectiveness of the apps (encouraged by computer science, policy-making...) and the respect for privacy concerns (encouraged by law, ethics...)
 * Discussed truth and power as relevant interdisciplinary issues
 * Decided on power as the most relevant issue to the topic
 * Planned to meet again after looking through sources to narrow down our ideas and allocate responsibilities to group members

27 Nov

 * Central argument/conflict: how much 'information' should these contact tracing apps 'take'
 * the more information, the more effective these apps will be (and as a result the more effective they will be in reducing the spread of the virus)
 * on the other hand, this leads to issues surrounding privacy (which extends to the disciplines of law and even philosophy/sociology)
 * Power looks to be the best issue by which to tackle this topic/argument as the way these apps are implemented comes down to finding a balance between these two factors: privacy and effectiveness. In other words, there is a power dynamic between these two factors and considering various disciplines can help us understand the importance of both.

5 Dec
Analyzing articles to identify the disciplinary tensions in the problem about designing contact tracing apps that don't compromise on privacy but are effective in aiding contact tracing

The Google Apple (exposure notification) protocol Decentralized vs centralized protocol Computer science/technology, law, sociology Quotes from academics from different fields Can mobile contact-tracing apps help lift lockdown? Different priorities
 * Identify a research question or problem that would clearly benefit from an interdisciplinary approach
 * Identify the two or three disciplinary perspectives that could profitably combine
 * Identify some tension between these disciplinary perspectives
 * Attribute that tension to an interdisciplinary issue

To do:
 * Move resources and summaries from Google Docs to Resources section in the discussion page

7th Dec

 * Discussed our contact tracing case study more in terms of power (partly as a result of having come out of an ATK seminar about truth, evidence and power).
 * Pointed out an issue with the rigid structure of splitting this case study into the disciplines as currently the sociology section might be leaning a bit towards law. If we want to maintain this structure, must ensure that sociology section is more focused on truth and language.
 * Started to draw up conclusions about how the shift in popularity from centralised to decentralised system is a result of the growing debate around (and importance placed on) privacy
 * Mentioned how law changes have been suggested to accommodate for privacy
 * Above two bullet points show how sociology and digital ethics are powerful and have influence
 * These comments on power can be interspersed thoughout the writing and then tied up together in the final conclusion (which we plan to start writing on Wednesday).

9th Dec
Detail tension between them Disciplinary tension can be a good thing, helps reach a balance (scientists are frustrated, but they need that interdisciplinary challenge to keep them in check because privacy is also important, same goes for everything else). Middle ground that works for everyone Different balance for each society (sociology) Too simplistic to see it as a ‘battle’, they are pushing people to consider more perspectives Privacy- safe guarding against future problems Push to a better solution It’s a kind of cycle, a constant push & pull between privacy and effectiveness so that the debate stays in balance
 * Went through the whole chapter after our individual inputs to integrate the various parts
 * For computer science, decided to focus more on power and how that power was at first with the centralized version
 * For sociology, wanted to elaborate more about how power was executed through power as a resource and power in using the language of computer scientists (speaking in terms of effectiveness and quantifying data)
 * For law, elaborate on how laws have overt power as they must be followed. However, some countries have unique laws that allow them to bypass privacy and data collection laws during a public health crisis
 * Made a plan for the conclusion:

11th Dec

 * Most of the writing was finished by this point, but we were significantly over the word count and a lot of the writing was quite repetitive and rambling. The aim of this meeting was mainly to clean things up and make the structure more coherent.
 * Made minor edits to the introduction and technology sections
 * Reviewed the newly written conclusion
 * Significantly re-structured the section on sociology to clarify the relevance of trust and make it flow more coherently
 * Changed the section on law to include less information, due to word limit constraints

12th Dec

 * Significantly re-structured and re-worded the law section to make it more coherent
 * Went over new structure for the sociology section and after a few minor edits agreed to keep it
 * Made minor changes of phrasing to help reduce the word count
 * Agreed on a standard way of formatting our citations because it was brought up that everyone's citations looked slightly different
 * Added some final citations
 * Transferred edits from the google doc to the wikibook

Structure
We came up with this structure during the Zoom meeting on 5th Dec

Introduction
Introduce topic of contact tracing apps (v. brief outline of how they work) Outline the privacy vs effectiveness debate Privacy: law, digital rights Effectiveness: computer science/ technology Decision makers: governments/policy makers

Computer Science/ Technology
Decentralized vs centralized model (conflict) Quotes from computer scientists,

Law/Digital rights
In general, more hardline stance

Sociopolitical context
Whether it will be accepted by the citizens (understanding of how people will react influences government decisions -> sociology has power?) Use how different the apps are in different countries as evidence for this

Analysis/Conclusion
Consensus: understand this is a pandemic and if it is necessary and can be justified, normal conventions on privacy can be violated Power in balance in different approaches, analyse what countries have chosen to completed disregard privacy Blatantly disregarding privacy Scientists and law academics agree GPS tracking (Israel) Other countries, like in the EU, chose for an approach more centred around privacy, even if it isn’t the most effective

=Resources=

Computer science/Technology
Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests epidemic control with digital contact tracing (March 31, 2020) A research article which calls for the implementation of contact tracing apps to detect and isolate coronavirus cases due asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission.

Proximity: a recipe to break the outbreak A research paper that details a smartphone application for contact tracing and explains why such an app is vital to contain an outbreak and how Bluetooth is the most suitable technology.

Law
Guidance from the EU data protection supervisor: https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/subjects/necessity-proportionality_en
 * outlines the legal concepts of necessity and proportionality
 * Obviously the law holds a certain authority (power) - no-one, even governments, can technically break the law. So if something is deemed “true” within this discipline (i.e. enshrined in law) it definitely has a significant power
 * But the law is open to interpretation - as long as we can justify that the use of personal data is necessary, its use is deemed not to be infringing upon people’s fundamental rights.
 * “Objective evidence” - what does this mean? This is where Law loses some of its power and the power falls into the scientists’ hands - if they can provide evidence to prove that the data they are using is necessary to protect public health etc., the law can’t stop them.
 * The source mentions determining the “proportionality of the limitation” - but how do we quantify this “proportionality”?

Keep in mind that this is specific to EU law. Academics contributed an article to the European Law Blog: https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/05/04/covid-19-a-new-struggle-over-privacy-data-protection-and-human-rights/
 * Stresses the same concepts of necessity and proportionality (“The processing is lawful where it is necessary to ‘protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person (Article 6(1)(d) of GDPR)”)
 * Examines the hypothesis that data protection rules slow down the response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The EU GDPR law can be accessed online here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
 * Obviously not an academic paper, but might be useful to cite certain points (eg. the one quoted by the source above)

A site outlining global laws relevant to personal privacy and data protection in the context of contact-tracing apps: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-024-5356?originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

The gov uk privacy notice on the NHS app could be used as evidence for how much power the law holds in strengthening the privacy side of the debate: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-covid-19-app-privacy-information/nhs-test-and-trace-app-early-adopter-trial-august-2020-privacy-notice

Legal academics across some UK universities have published a proposed bill intended to safeguard privacy in light of the introduction of contact-tracing apps: https://osf.io/preprints/lawarxiv/yc6xu/

Contains some quotes from legal experts and computer scientists that shed light about how the different disciplines feel about a contact tracing app: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200415-covid-19-could-bluetooth-contact-tracing-end-lockdown-early

Sociopolitical/Political Science/Policy
An academic paper that discusses various privacy models underpinning contact tracing apps. It also highlights the unique sociopolitical context in Singapore that has resulted in broad acceptance by its citizens. Under the section “3.3 Privacy from the Authorities” they talk about the sociopolitical context https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.11511.pdf

Article on policy making during crisis, focused on political leaders respond to expertise from scientific advisors: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4039
 * Implies that although the scientists are included in the discussion, they have no real power over the policies that are made because of the influence of political factors
 * Furthermore, governments can draw on catchphrases like “following the science” and “listening to the experts” to lend authority to their own decisions and increase their own power

paper that looks at the relationship between science and politics in the context of the UK’s response to the pandemic: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vision/c19-needs-good-politics-too The main point is that science has its limitations and cannot be treated as a rulebook for politicians to follow step-by-step. It is constantly evolving, and provides empirical evidence is subject to different interpretations. (we are giving science a level of power that it may not deserve) These limitations must be acknowledged, if we are to have a real debate between privacy/effectiveness, otherwise it allows politicians to shield responsibility for their decisions.
 * The scope of this paper is wider (ie. pandemic response in general, not contact-tracing apps specifically) but can still be applied to our context

Journal article on “Citizens’ attitudes to contact-tracing apps”: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/citizens-attitudes-to-contact-tracing-apps/F9B8B8CFE051E6D89C3C9ADD6DF76019

A table with the different contact tracing apps of different countries and whether they meet certain conditions to ensure privacy: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/07/1000961/launching-mittr-covid-tracing-tracker/

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/privacy-probity-and-public-interest : research paper on how far the media can go when invading people’s privacy. Useful to mention when talking about how much society values privacy (especially in Europe)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/it-privacy/ : A more philosophical approach to what privacy mean in a society and how it relates to the collection of data and technology in general.

https://www.digitalhealth.net/2020/10/major-questions-unanswered-about-effectiveness-of-nhs-covid-19-app/ : article that can help illustrate a form of skepticism towards the NHS app in the UK, and contact tracing apps in Europe in general (could be useful for sociological approach) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53466471

https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/blog/beyond-contact-tracing-apps-how-trust-shapes-e-governance/ = research paper on the important of trust in government when sharing data, using the example of Finland or Ukraine