Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy AI Electronic Frontier Foundation

What Happens When Tech Companies Offer to Fight Coronavirus With Digital Surveillance? (wired.com) 55

"White House officials are asking tech companies for more insight into our social networks and travel patterns," reports Wired, noting that Facebook even "created a disease mapping tool that tracks the spread of disease by aggregating user travel patterns." And Clearview AI "says it is in talks with public officials to use its software to identify anyone in contact with people who are infected." Such efforts clash with people's expectations of privacy. Now, there's a compelling reason to collect and share the data; surveillance may save lives. But it will be difficult to draw boundaries around what data is collected, who gets to use it, and how long the collection will continue...

"What's really important is for the government to be really clear in articulating what specific public health goals it's seeking to accomplish," said Kelsey Finch, senior counsel at the Future of Privacy Forum, an industry-backed group focused on tech policy. "And how it's limiting the collection of personal data to what's necessary to achieve those very specific goals, and then making sure that there are appropriate privacy safeguards put in place before data starts to change hands...."

Some privacy scholars question whether enhanced surveillance in the name of fighting disease can be dialed back once the danger has passed. "I'm not sure that we should be making longer-term judgments, in an emergency situation, about what the right balance is right now," said Jennifer Daskal, faculty director of the Tech, Law, and Security program at American University and a former national security official in the Department of Justice. "That often doesn't work out so well." Pointing back to 9/11, when Congress granted immense surveillance powers to the federal government, Daskal said decisions made during emergency situations tend to lead to overreach...

The rapid spread of the disease has prompted even some traditional defenders of personal privacy to acknowledge the potential benefits of digital tracking. "Public policy must reflect a balance between collective good and civil liberties in order to protect the health and safety of our society from communicable disease outbreaks," the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote in a blog post earlier this month. But, the group continued, any data collection "must be scientifically justified and ⦠proportionate to the need."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Happens When Tech Companies Offer to Fight Coronavirus With Digital Surveillance?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Tell them to go fuck themselves. Tech companies are worthless parasites.

    • What good is surveillance when you have failed the first hurdles - unable to mass test, unable to scale, unable to react, unable to care and follows unable to save nobodies and trailer trash. In just one area of Italy, everyone was tested - and 3% was NOT enough to hit the panic button. Not enough respirators, yet unwilling to raid veterinary hospitals - but willing to pack excess ICU cases out to palliative care. The second hurdle is the guts to go to wartime measures - issue what we know works till som
    • Luddite.

      That is how Korea succeeded. Mobile phone surveillance - track all mobile phones and use mobile phone trajectories and call data for big data queries to trace all contacts.

      That is what Israel is doing today and Germany (after a change in their legislation) will start this week. That is what the Russians have been doing - border control dumps everything to health, health after that complements it with data from the passport database and uploads to local authorities which enforce the 14 day post-tr

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22, 2020 @07:15PM (#59860942)

    Trump appointed US AG Bob Barr seeks the suspension of Americans' constitutional rights, in stunning display of contempt for the rule of law and due process.

    In the United States, you have the right to present before a judge and ask to be released from custody before trial. It's enshrined in the Constitution and has been a feature of the American legal system since our country's instantiation.

    This is called the right of habeas corpus. The idea is that you absolutely cannot be arrested and never brought before a judge; being held indefinitely until the government decides that they will release you. That is why we have judges in this country, and one aspect of what distinguishes the American legal system from those of totalitarian states around the world.

    Yet, after Trump declared a national emergency Barr's next move was to develop a plan to suspend habeas corpus. Barr specifically requests that any federal district court to pause proceedings, to the degree that the court's operation is suspended as a result of the coronavirus. So, you can be held indefinitely, and you have no guarantee of a right to appear before a judge or be released pre-trial.

    This Rolling Stone article discusses further. [rollingstone.com]

    Further reporting from Politico also covers the more technical/legal aspects of what Trump's DOJ is seeking. [politico.com]

    As you may or may not know, courts around the country at the federal (and state) levels have already closed. [abajournal.com]

    For example, the District Courts for the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California are closed. Northern District of Illinois is closed and all civil trials are suspended. The Second Circuit appellate court, Eleventh Circuit Appellate Court and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals; as well as the Supreme Court have suspended operations. The District of New Jersey closed after an attorney from Greenburg Traurig presented in a courtroom who later tested positive for the coronavirus.

    To be clear, what Barr is proposing is not martial law, per se, but it's not clear just exactly how far from martial law Barr's proposal reaches. And while today, the DOJ's request isn't likely to be granted, no one knows what tomorrow may bring.

    In any emergency, there is a temptation to grant the government increasingly more power out of fear. But, we are a democracy and the rule of law prevails even in times of crisis. It is precisely in these moments that our actions matter most. Conscientious respect for due process is more important now than ever, as without the rule of law we descend into complete chaos.

    Under no circumstances is what Barr is proposing acceptable. You should know what he is up to. The Trump DOJ cannot be permitted to vitiate so basic a constitutional right of all Americans.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Trump appointed US AG Bob Barr seeks the suspension of Americans' constitutional rights, in stunning display of contempt for the rule of law and due process.

      We lost that battle in 2011. I believe somebody else was president back then [aclu.org].

    • This 'problem' can easily be solved using readily available technology: a form of video conferencing. Appearances before a judge can be done via video. Hell, I could see entire trials happening over video conferencing, until this crisis is over. Barr has no excuse, he's a hack and potentially a traitor by way of placing personal loyalty above upholding the law, and absolutely should not be allowed to proceed with this.
  • Behavioral data collection does nothing but (possibly) give a clearer idea of the spread patterns, for which, regardless of what they are, the recommended response (social isolation, hygiene, etc.) is exactly the same.

    On the other, more cynical side typically favored by totalitarians... "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

    • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday March 22, 2020 @08:29PM (#59861094) Homepage

      They already mass collect [nytimes.com] this data. As the article shows it's not very hard to correlate one signal with the person it belongs to without any personal identifiers either. The question is just whether they'll start openly using it to tell people they've been in close proximity to someone infected or whether the backlash would be too big. My guess is this is the other half of the story on how China got the virus under control so quickly, one is the total lock down / curfew. But for every confirmed infection they probably rewound the location data, added CCTV, electronic payments, license plate readers etc. and went "okay everyone on the 8:35 bus of route 71, testing" "everyone who went to this restaurant on the 29th, testing" "all the people who went to this corner store on the 30th, testing". Or just straight to quarantine, who knows. It's probably great to stop an epidemic but pretty creepy in every other respect.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aeropage ( 6536406 )

        Testing, okay, so then what?

        Forced quarantine, well, now we're taking it up a level. Feel the same about HIV, with a death toll of 32 million people?

        Choose wisely.

      • My guess is this is the other half of the story on how China got the virus under control so quickly, one is the total lock down / curfew. But for every confirmed infection they probably rewound the location data, added CCTV, electronic payments, license plate readers etc. and went "okay everyone on the 8:35 bus of route 71, testing" "everyone who went to this restaurant on the 29th, testing" "all the people who went to this corner store on the 30th, testing". Or just straight to quarantine, who knows. It's probably great to stop an epidemic but pretty creepy in every other respect.

        ~Kjella

        I have lived and worked in China since 2014 and, yes, your "guess" is creepy. Your "guess" is calculated menace.

        It's also of the genotype to distinguish between "lock downs" (the slang of penalogy) and advisory quarantine and its variety of willfull ignorance contributing to the advance of this pathogen's contagion.

        Contagion is a word used to emphasize both the pathogen's characteristics and, as equally, the conditions and circumstances of its hosts' behaviors to increase or diminish a pathogen's advance.

  • there will be no control of how it is used. The cat will be out of the bag.
    There is too much money there, low hanging fruit to be picked it will be irresistible to abuse.

    Yeah right, what are they going to do? Pinky swear?
    No doubt there will be some stern talk and somber promises.
    But we are talking about a whole lot of value in that data.

    Remember when one corporation claimed it would do no evil? Now look where we are at.

    • Remember when one corporation claimed it would do no evil? Now look where we are at.

      NO evil is a concept like no human interference in an experiment conducted ny humans...not humanly possible./p.

    • The data is already mass collected, and has been for many years. The question is, how obvious and in your face will that fact be made to the population?

    • I would not be surprised if a company like Google or Facebook already has all the information at hand. The missing link would be the legal permission to go ahead and use it, and this is their opportunity to unleash the full power of their surveillance^Wsocial media networks. Remember, the Chinese government chose Google technology for a reason.

  • sick people get put in camps like the jews if we let things run un checked.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      It's funny you mention putting Jews in camps since that was managed with technology too, specifically IBM machines with punch cards printed by IBM if Germany and for which the support checks were paid straight to IBM in Armonk, NY.

      Seems like either way we'll put people in camps

    • Yes, sure, those 'camps' are called hospitals.
  • "Public policy must reflect a balance between collective good and civil liberties in order to protect the health and safety of our society from communicable disease outbreaks,"

    is the same as...

    We should be able to do anything we want to citizens to ensure that this nation operates the way we demand that it should. While moves like to overplay what a post apocalyptic world looks like it is not exactly far off, considering humanity has experienced such things it actually in small settings from time to time.

    T

  • by ElitistWhiner ( 79961 ) on Sunday March 22, 2020 @07:52PM (#59861016) Journal

    1) On the one hand, tested and confirmed infected are a threat to society literally. They can be quarantined and monitored for public safety.
    2) The untested have two choices. They can volunteer to be tested AND/OR they can elect to be monitored for their own safety. Notification can be given to prevent or advise when contact or proximity have crossed paths with known cases to those who refuse testing but choose monitoring.
    3) Notified untested can then be re-tested in 6 days time in the event of cross-contagion.
    4) Known quarantined can be re-arrested and re-quarantined under strict surveillance
    5) Known re-arrested whose contacts are tested AND tested positive can be imprisoned for the sake of society

    50K cases worldwide were added to today's count. Today the U.S. surpassed Spain, Germany and Iran on the John Hopkins listing.
    https://www.arcgis.com/apps/op... [arcgis.com]

    It's either this or Marshall Law, right? We have only a couple weeks to get a grip on flattening this curve or its SHTF scenario for all.

    • "The untested have two choices. They can volunteer to be tested"

      I volunteer to be tested... Where's the test? Who's going to pay?

      "It's either this or Marshall Law, right?"

      Marshall? That guy is always trouble.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Issues about Marshall Law are adjudicated by Marshall Mathers.

      As far as the rest of your argument, no, not in a democracy. You cannot simply arrest someone because you assume they're sick or contagious, even the most detailed tests have false positives and false negatives. You also can't involuntarily test everyone over and over again, people have way too many contacts to know where and who it spread to anyway.

      • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Sunday March 22, 2020 @10:20PM (#59861436)

        As far as the rest of your argument, no, not in a democracy.

        What does a democracy have anything to do with whether or not people can be arrested or detained? Democracy predates habeas corpus. It is our laws and judicial system which provides these rights, not the fact we are a democracy (or republic, or whatever). Our democracy has had plenty of examples of internment camps in its history (including right now) and to think we are immune to draconian measures in times of crisis or hysteria is quite naive.

    • I think everyone agrees that our society needs actions to slow down the spread of the virus. No arguments there from anyone. The big question is how to do this. Surveillance is one way to force people to act in desired ways. Another way is to put electronic monitors on everyone's ankles. Still another way is to chain everyone to their homes. Another way is to chop off everyone's feet. It should be obvious that many effective actions are completely unacceptable, even to arrest the spread of a horrible

    • What you propose is wholly and absolutely illegal.
    • USA moving past some countries is not such a big deal, please pay attention to the numbers here: https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info] Look at the last column, Switzerland today passed Italy on the infected per million number, taking the top spot. It won't surpass Italy, Spain and whatnot, in numbers of infected. But for 8 million inhabitants, you can imagine healthcare workers are going to be exhausted soon, we might be running out of beds, and if too many people in healthcare functions fall ill, we'll have ki
  • Is it worth roughly a million lives to prevent that data from being collected? Its not just some theoretical question anymore, we are literally talking about real people dying for the privacy of others.

    I might comment that people seem willing to sell their own privacy for a pittance for various free things.

    So, what will you die for?

    • By what means are you proposing that having finer granularity of information on virus spread, when there is no cure, a nearly full "lockdown" is in place, and the treatment regimen remains exactly the same regardless of that information, would save "a million lives"?

      "Yes, but as a noted scientist, it would be a bit surprising if the girl blinded -me- with science..." [youtube.com]

    • Don't worry, people with also die from not having the privacy and likely more over time, like a nice insidious trickle. Your argument sounds exactly like the one where villages would sacrifice the young virgin to appease the crops gods.

      In other works, you are more than willing to do evil any time you think it benefits you and to hell with the consequences. Over time, people start to hate each other than society becomes dystopian as more and more people think like you.

      I would rather die from Corona than li

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Millions of people died before you defending that freedom. A few thousand are going to die at most, it's a price we didn't mind paying in WW2 and every war before and after, why now?

      Is it worth roughly a million lives to prevent black people from being collected? It's not just some theoretical question anymore, we are literally talking about real people dying for the freedom of others.

      • Why do you think a few thousand will die? CDC and WHO are talking about a roughly 1-2% mortality rate, and without strong measures we expect around half the population to be infected. If healthcare breaks down, the mortality goes up to a few % (3.6% in China). It likely to kill more Americans than died in service in all of our wars combined.

        Imperial college estimated 2.2 million deaths in the US, but that assumed the medical system didn't get overloaded - which it likely will.

        Its OK if its worth a milli

        • by guruevi ( 827432 )

          Those are worst case scenarios.

          We're not seeing near the levels of spread in the US and we also have the most number of ventilators per capita in the world. France, Italy and the UK are regularly operating at the edge of overloaded where they are cancelling so-called "elective" care every flu season (things like cancer care that can be delayed without too much risk for the majority of patients). The US is only cancelling doctors visits at this point and reconsidering some surgeries, most "elective" cancer c

  • by adfraggs ( 4718383 ) on Sunday March 22, 2020 @08:05PM (#59861034)
    In general I am supportive of the idea of authorities having this information. Be transparent about it, open it up for scrutiny and give people the eventual option to ensure all of their data is deleted once the crisis has passed. Just digging into what we expect to be private data without any public consultation isn't the answer. Singapore is asking people to install an app on their phone. Note the ASKING part. Of course not everyone is going to join the party but you need to at least try to include the people in what you're trying to do, not force it on them.
  • Let just exterminate a bunch of people because according to BigTech's AI algorithms they are prone to be making things worse.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Why is testing and finding the sick and all people who had contact with the sick "1984"...
      Going back over passports, hotel datasets, travel, immigration data, smartphone use is not 1984...
      Its just medical work to get hep to people and stop the spread of wuflu.
      To slow the spread of wuflu in nations so ICU use can keep up with bed numbers needed per day.
  • A tough call (Score:5, Informative)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Sunday March 22, 2020 @08:26PM (#59861088)

    On the one hand, the kind of monitoring proposed (combined with testing, tracing, isolation, travel bans, and quarantine) did a good job of controlling the virus in South Korea [bbc.com] as well as in Singapore. Additionally, if these kinds of measures aren't taken, deaths in the US won't be in the tens or hundreds of thousands - they're likely to be in the milliions, as this in-depth article makes clear. [medium.com]

    On the other hand, Mike Pence is talking about sending infected workers back to work with masks on. [thedailybeast.com] Given that the current federal administration seems hell-bent on letting Covid-19 infect and kill as many people as possible, (because Pence and even Trump can't possibly be as stupidly in denial as their actions might indicate), it woiuld be easy to conclude that the proposed monitoring is solely and completely aimed at increased surveillance, with the pandemic as simply a convenient excuse.

    As a Canadian, I don't know how I would respond to the quandary if I lived in the States. But I can say that, as little as I trust governments including my own, I'd welcome this kind of intervention from my own government. I get the whole 'sacrificing liberty for temporary security' thing - but I also get the 'live to fight another day' concept, and right now, that's the one holding sway with me.

  • by theodp ( 442580 ) on Sunday March 22, 2020 @08:27PM (#59861090)

    How the Virus Got Out [nytimes.com]: The most extensive travel restrictions to stop an outbreak in human history haven't been enough. We analyzed the movements of hundreds of millions of people to show why.

  • This is the voice of Colossus...

    Frances Stoner Sanders, author of The Cultural Cold War:
    The most effective kind of propaganda was defined as the kind where "The subject moves in the direction you desire for reasons which he believes to be his own."
  • The sick get found. They are isolated so they cannot spread wuflu.
    Everyone they had contact with is isolated and tested... so they cannot spread wuflu.
    The rest of the community gets an app to find masks.
    A tap of their insurance, nations ID like card get them a number of masks per day.
    What happens?
    The sick get found and treated.
    People who could be sick get tested.
    Less people end up in ICU. ICU is still ready for wuflu and all other normal medical use.

    Welcome to normal nations with functional immig
    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      If you call that normal, go live there. There's a reason the US and most of the EU doesn't live under those rules (yet). Replace sick people with Jews or Uyghur or in the case of South Korea "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons, women, racial and ethnic minorities, foreigners—especially refugees and migrants—and people with HIV".

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Yet their ICU rate might be ok.
        They had the medical grade pressure rooms ready.. not trying to find motels and duct tape...
        Mask production and the ability to grant citizens with ID a mask. Then an app to give them directions to the next mask.. as needed over weeks.
        vs the skill set of France, Italy, around the EU...
        Care in hospital for sick people is not a "rule"... its just getting medial care as a citizen under their nations health care system as any citizen would be allowed to do.
        The difference is a
  • ... if you don't put their app on your phone, and you use the equivalent of No-Script on your browser.

    On iOS you can use Purify to stop sites from running scripts. It's a bit tedious at first, since you have to whitelist those sites you *want* to allow to run scripts... but I'd argue it's worth it. I just wish they had a version for macOS Safari as well.

    There's also Firefox Focus, which can be a standalone browser as well as an iOS Safari plugin. It doesn't block first-party scripts, but it does block most

    • Ostensibly The Government wouldn't bother with getting you to install an 'app', they'd either demand location data from all wireless companies, or use exploits to push-install software that runs silently in the background, which is the major issue with this subject: taking away people's choices, and forcing domestic surveillance on everyone. But I don't think it'll work anyway. [slashdot.org]
  • 1. In spite of what you all seem to believe, not everyone has a smartphone.
    2. The majority of the people who don't have a smartphone (or ANY phone for that matter) are more likely to be poor and/or homeless.
    3. The poor and homeless are probably more likely to get exposed to this virus in the first place.
    4. Another subset of people who will not likely have smartphones are also in a high-risk category: the elderly.
    5. Furthermore: privacy and security conscious people are not carrying smartphones, and oppo
    • I agree with some of the things you said, but not others. And I think your conclusion is incorrect.

      1. ... not everyone has a smartphone.

      A smartphone isn't necessary - any cell phone will provide at least approximate location data that will allow trends to be analyzed. And yes, there are still a lot of folks who don't have cell phones. I don't think that's as serious a flaw as you do - see my explanation below.

      2. The majority of the people who don't have a smartphone (or ANY phone for that matter) are more likely to be poor and/or homeless. 3. The poor and homeless are probably more likely to get exposed to this virus in the first place. 4. Another subset of people who will not likely have smartphones are also in a high-risk category: the elderly.

      The tracking of those with cell phones - smart or not - can help create large groups of people who are well, and well-monitored. This ca

      • 'Cell tower data' by itself won't tell anyone who you've been closer than 6 feet with, which is what they (ostensibly) want to know. I already thought of all that before I started writing my comment.
        Also allow me to reiterate and expand: without 100% coverage, anyone who slips through the surveillance net has to be considered someone who can infect dozens of others; all it takes is 1 person with no cellphone, or with location services turned off, or who has their phone in 'airplane mode' unless they're usi

Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner

Working...