
Digital surveillance technologies to fight pandemic must respect human rights - ericdanielski
https://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2020/pandemie-menschenrechte
======
sifar
To those who advocate that the majority's right to live trumps the right to an
individual's privacy, who decides ?

At present it is due the pandemic, next it will target some set of people
because they are undesirable - because you know, that would supposedly make us
safe. We know how that ended the last time. Whether it is contact tracing or
wearing an arm band, underneath it is the same thing.

When an individual is compelled, for the perceived safety of the majority, it
leads to slavery. It also destroys the majority. And technology accelerates
this process.

Having seen rights being eroded, trampled, mocked, I have realized that we do
not have any effective rights. They are a privilege bestowed by those in
power.

~~~
hartator
I think individual rights should always trump the majority will. Individual
rights are natural, unremovable, and should not be up to debate. It’s the
reason why the US is a republic and we have a bill of rights > all laws or
orders.

~~~
luckylion
So no wiretaps, ever? I'm not so sure...

~~~
hartator
It’s up to a judge to decide. It has to limited in scope, responsable, and
with serious individual suspicion. A lot like current quarantine rulings -
mass quarantines are unconstitutional in the US - but we all forget.

~~~
luckylion
> It’s up to a judge to decide.

Yeah, but he enacts the will of the majority ;)

I totally get & agree with the sentiment, but not in the absolutist form. It's
always going to be fuzzy, the question is mostly how we weigh the needs of the
many and the needs of the few (or the individual). I do believe that the
average response to that is strongly reflected in each nation's laws &
culture, with the US emphasizing the individual's needs a lot more.

------
bitcharmer
I'm even more terrified by what's going on at the not-so-virtual level. In
Poland, where I come from they have been exercising a crawling coup d'état and
turning the country into a police state. They passed laws that go directly
against the constitution, they refuse to postpone presidential elections in
early May and they started terrorising whole communities with overwhelming
police harassment.

They event chose to give a raise to the police and not the healthcare workers.

I only hope the EU steps in soon or we'll see Poland drifting towards an
authoritarian regime

~~~
nabla9
EU can't do much.

Poland (radical right government) and Hungary (far right government) have a
pact where they veto any EU actions against one of them.

Members of EU are sovereign states. I think kicking them out of the union is
only way to proceed if their system does not fit into the EU anymore.

~~~
squarefoot
"Poland (radical right government) and Hungary (far right government) have a
pact where they veto any EU actions against one of them."

Same will happen in Italy in a few years.

"I think kicking them out of the union is only way to proceed if their system
does not fit into the EU anymore."

To keep the EU clean, yes, but it won't accomplish anything locally: far right
governments would actually love to get out of the European Union so they can
do their nasty stuff unsupervised.

~~~
jacobush
But if they are allowed to stay, it sets a very dangerous precedent.
Realistically, they will stay.

~~~
squarefoot
Also a good point.

------
soufron
If I might, digital surveillance technologies cannot actually help fight the
pandemic. It's a fantasy. What can hep are masks, medicines and good hygiene
practices. Everything else is only the use of shock doctrine to push old
agendas. If you're interested, that's what I argued in the French newspaper
Liberation:

[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.liberation.fr%2Fdebats%2F2020%2F04%2F10%2Fle-
contact-tracking-ou-la-generalisation-du-bracelet-electronique-pour-les-
citoyens_1784826)

~~~
Tainnor
Well, at least this one study seems to conclude that surveillance can in fact
help:
[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/09/scie...](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/09/science.abb6936)
I seem to have heard that there were other studies concluding similar things,
but can't find another one right now.

Even privacy advocates have argued that apps can, if developed well, be useful
if developed with privacy in mind. See the link by the CCC or this post by
Linus Neumann, who is affiliated with the CCC (only in German, unfortunately):
[https://linus-neumann.de/2020/03/corona-apps-sinn-und-
unsinn...](https://linus-neumann.de/2020/03/corona-apps-sinn-und-unsinn-von-
tracking/)

------
messo
The good news is that we do not have to sacrifice our (digital) human rights
to fight the virus. I was recently made aware of a really simple but effective
way of tracking infections without storing data centrally or using positional
information (GPS): [https://ncase.me/contact-
tracing/](https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/)

~~~
marcelsalathe
That's correct. DP3T documents and code here:
[https://github.com/DP-3T/](https://github.com/DP-3T/)

~~~
TechBro8615
It’s really interesting tech, and a great group of people behind it. But the
government doesn’t care for this nuance of what is privacy preserving tech and
what is not. For now, maybe at the beginning, privacy will be emphasized. But
the important part is conditioning citizens to be okay with the underlying
idea of technology assisted self-surveillance, and compliance with
notifications on their phone telling them to stay inside. Eventually people
will forget about the underlying details and privacy will be deemphasized.

“You were okay with TrackingApp 1.0, why wouldn’t you be okay with TrackingApp
2.0?”

If we give an inch now, will the government take a mile later?

Btw, it’s worth noting that last night in his press conference, Trump was
asked about contact tracing apps. He emphasized that people are worried about
constitutional implications. Personally, that’s refreshing for me, and seems
to distinguish him from the Bush/Cheney era pushing of the Patriot Act, or
Obama’s use of dragnet surveillance and secret FISA courts.

~~~
bitxbitxbitcoin
If we give an inch now, the government will absolutely take a mile later.

From the perspective of the centralized government, it's a race to the bottom
with privacy rights and you know what famous racer D. Toretto said about
races...

"It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning's winning."

------
naringas
"""and the first human right is the right to live.

therefore, so that we all may live on, you must give up your privacy.

It's only so that the appropriate authorities may tack down anybody you may
have contacted; and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be
quarantined. And frankly they might die, but we do this merely so that the
rest of us may live on peacefully and prosper."""

e.g. take this 'and if found to be virus carriers they will simply be
quarantined' and swap it out for another historical age statement such as a
classic inquisition era "if found to be sinner/heretics/non-believers the
church will help them repent" though, in the inquisition era there was no
comparable surveillance technology.

I just wrote this, but I am not sure whether I agree. I am conflicted.

edit: after editing in the inquisiton example, I realized that I disagree
(with many reservations) with the entire sentiment of initial triple-quote.

~~~
zulgan
I don't think this is true, the first human right is the right to die, and
secondly the right to live. So you can only live a life that allows you to
die.

For example, if my mother is in a hospital dying from corona, and the system
forbids me to see her (despite me taking precautions that I deem fit), I must
revolt.

This of course sounds like nonsense, and I am also conflicted, but this is my
intuition.

~~~
hestipod
I was recently hospitalized for a suicide attempt due to years of chronic pain
and depression as a result. I was not allowed to die. I get no help to live
after being dumped back out when "stable" medically. I was not allowed any
visitors due to the virus and it was very detrimental to my mental health. Now
I am here alone trying to piece together a future. Nobody revolted...and I am
powerless to. Frustrates me so much there wasn't help to live...but I am told
I have to. Trapped in a room with no doors or windows and on fire. I don't see
this "help" everyone says there is to get. Just people wanting thousands of
dollars from me that I cannot pay for nonsense.

~~~
lioeters
That's tough to hear. I've been close to such a situation, but managed to
recover after a move across half the country (and self-medication). I imagine
there must be some service you can call, to talk to someone who actually
cares. I wish you strength in reaching out and getting through somehow.

------
whitebread
Sadly not holding my breath for this to happen in America. After they tracked
those spring breaker cell phones with ease, I’m afraid human rights are
already being trampled.

~~~
chapium
Proportionate response isn't trampling.

Edit: I should flesh this out a bit further.

In hindsight, cellphone data should have augmented contact tracing rather than
just sitting on the sidelines and drawing maps a week later. In my opinion
there is a time and place to wield technological power when there is a
collective need. Ethicists can argue where the line is drawn but an
existential threat to 2% of the infected seems sufficient, especially given
how fast a pandemic spreads.

~~~
keiferski
This kind of opinion is predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint. I.e.,
it's okay to do wrong to a small number of people if it benefits the
overwhelming majority of people.

There are plenty of other ethical approaches, many of which would say that the
upholding of certain rights is more important than any benefits gained from
violating them.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
To concur:

It's not merely predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint, it assumes that
we've accurately accounted for costs of the options (eg, second and third
order effects) when deciding rather than merely justifying our preferences
with biased models.

Empirically, the second (biased models) happens considerably more often than
the first (accurate accounting) -- to the point that even if you're a
utilitarian, you have to admit it doesn't work in practice. You simply can't
make the required benefit calculations for utilitarianism.

This is something businesses get wrong a lot: their numerical justification is
actually a reflection of the biases of their staff, rather than an accurate
accounting of the options.

~~~
Tainnor
The counterpoint to this is that you can't just wait forever before making a
decision. At some point, you'll have to do with imprecise data, and for a
pandemic that is developing very rapidly, you can't just sit back and do
nothing (well you can, but then you have to make an argument for why this is a
good option).

As to the point of whether utilitarianism is a good ethical framework... well,
at least no non-consequentialist ethical framework has ever convinced me. A
naïve reading of utilitarianism has its problems, of course, but those can be
accounted for; but the classical Kantian conundrum of not being allowed to lie
to a murderer seems silly to me. Plus saying "principles matter" has just as
many problems as the utilitarian approach, as nobody will be able to agree on
those principles.

------
Zenst
When such things are done to maintain the human right to live then information
freedom will take second place in priorities. Yes that sounds dramatic, but is
the context that is being overlooked here.

Should it be opt-in, should it be opt-out. Well I'm already aware of people
who go out and leave their mobile at home, so you could ask that those this is
going to need to target will not be targetable.

~~~
monkeynotes
I am keeping an eye on digital passports that may be needed to go grocery
shopping, or just go to the park. It's plausible that you will be _required_
to carry your phone, or some kind of digital ID device to check into these
places.

We are already hearing about immunity passports. I don't want to sound like a
nut case, but I can see that once we have this sort of thing as commonplace to
deal with Covid it will be expanded and never withdrawn. The phrase "the new
normal" is starting to pop up, and I find that terrifying. I am already
mourning the life we enjoyed just months ago.

~~~
jaywalk
This is exactly correct, and half of the population (at least in America) is
sitting here and begging the government to take away more of their freedom so
they can feel safer.

I am terrified of what the future holds.

~~~
monkeynotes
There is zero doubt in my mind life will never, ever be the same again. We've
seen this by example of 9/11\. That was one tragic day and daily life changed
forever.

So many people are looking forward to getting out of lockdown and resuming
their lives. I don't think those lives exist any more, and they will not
return to us. Whatever is on the other side of this isn't what we had before.

~~~
zabana
Interesting perspective. In what ways do you think our lives will be changed
forever ?

~~~
Zenst
Well, after the last war, many countries had conscription to bolster their
armies and to have resources better prepared if there was one again.

So I would not be supprised and indeed would welcome countries doing Medical
conscription and if you raise up whole generations who have done even a few
weeks of medical training and with that, raise the basic level of health and
first aid knowledge. That alone would make things better, would reduce those
needing to go to the doctor and in the UK with a free access public health
service, you cut down on people attending A&E and Doctors with silly issues
that would be 101 first aid and basic knowledge treatable or preventable.

But that is just one whole area.

Food packaging, will change and maybe not in a good way. Early on we saw
coffee outlets refuse to use reusable cups for fears of contamination. We have
gone from the verge of lambasting individual fruits wrapped in plastic towards
one that demands it almost.

Be so many ways things will change, directly and more so indirectly.

But not all bad, many people got to talk to neibours they never met, via
windows a sense of community and shared issues and cohesion will be much
better after this.

Though high-streets already suffering from online advantages, may well of seen
the killer blow from this.

Also business wise, it will see many rethink business models and how they
operate. Some will diversify, some change direction, some fold and new ones
will spring out.

Back in the 70's in the UK we had milk delivered daily in glass bottles via
electric vehicles. Over time that died out and plastic bottles from
supermarkets being the main.

We may well see a return of such services and certainly for daily consumables
like milk, fruit veg, bread. We will see an increase in companies offering
that now as the demand and mentality for that demand after this all, will
still be there.

Biggest one though, will be more companies open to flexible hours and working
from home, which is great.

~~~
zabana
Yeah, it doesn't necessarily have to be all negative ! Thanks for sharing your
point of view :)

------
dan-robertson
Digital surveillance technologies used to advertise toothpaste, however,
should (or at least will) remain largely unregulated and free to do what they
want

~~~
bloak
So in some countries a government initiative to track people using mobile
electronic devices might lead to greater privacy. We could end up with
government-issued phones as an alternative to phones designed and continually
updated by foreign corporations. (Though clearly there are lots of ways the
story could go.)

~~~
meowface
Any day of the week, I'd much prefer to be tracked by Google trying to sell me
things than have my every action tracked by the government through my
government-issued phone. If those are my only two options, give me Google any
day.

------
vinniejames
Google and Apple teaming up to enforce tracking at the OS level, very clever
indeed:

"The Verge: Apple and Google have a clever way of encouraging people to
install contact-tracing apps for COVID-19."
[https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/4/14/21219289/apple-...](https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/4/14/21219289/apple-
google-contact-tracing-app-android-ios-pros-cons-quarantine-testing)

~~~
bilbo0s
In fairness, the government somehow tracked the cell phones of numerous spring
breakers. So, I mean, obviously they already have some ability to do the
tracking without any changes by google or apple at all. This just makes that
ability known to smart phone users.

~~~
Jagat
They most likely did that through triangulation, which is too coarse for
contact tracing.

~~~
bilbo0s
But they actually did contact tracing for the spring breakers using whatever
method they have now. So either they have another method, or triangulation was
good enough for the contact tracing they wanted to do.

------
vinniejames
Ed Snowden discussing the topic on Vice:

[https://youtu.be/k5OAjnveyJo](https://youtu.be/k5OAjnveyJo)

~~~
zabana
the video is unavailable outside of the US

~~~
squarefoot
Temporary error maybe? I'm not in the US and can watch it perfectly.

------
adequateness
A related post is EFF's blog post about contract tracing apps[1]. They talk
about many of the same issues as CCC but specifically targeted to contract
tracing.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/challenge-proximity-
ap...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/challenge-proximity-apps-
covid-19-contact-tracing)

------
totalZero
Liberty is a human right. Digital surveillance is fundamentally an invasion of
liberty, so by its very nature such surveillance is antithetical to human
rights.

~~~
black_puppydog
there's many liberties, and they often directly conflict. My liberty to
listening to music I like conflicts with my neighbour's liberty to sleep at
night.

Not saying CCC are wrong here - they're pretty much spot on, as so often - but
making sweeping statements like this is doing a disservice to this much-needed
discourse.

~~~
totalZero
Digital surveillance is a violation of human rights in the same way a
policeman cannot enter your house without warrant to observe you and search
you. This is one of the oldest principles in modern political thought and it
stretches back to at least Semayne's Case in 1604.

Your neighbor has a right to sleep in his home. If you blast music, you are
disturbing the serenity of his home. That is a different question than the
government coming into your private affairs to spy on you.

If you really believe that your assertion is applicable, apply it to this
circumstance (digital surveillance), rather than setting up a different
argument (music and sleep) where your assertion better applies.

Your assertion essentially amounts to "all clear principles are bad because
they obscure exceptions." First, this is reflexive -- it applies to itself.
Second, it is the burden of the exception to prove itself, not the burden of
the rule to prove all of its own exceptions; the government needs a reason
specific to me in order to observe my private affairs, and in absence of such
a warrant I have a blanket protection from those observations.

------
mytailorisrich
If we want to deal with this pandemic and technological tools like tracking
apps are deemed essential to that goal then my view is that these tools should
be built and deployed with effectiveness in mind, not privacy.

The privacy aspect should then be dealt with by enacting stringent time limits
on the use of these tools, not by constraining them.

Here in Europe I see discussions and arguments that such tools cannot be
deployed because they would breach privacy, or that people will refuse to use
them for the same reason.

I think that this is like arguing about dinner on a sinking ship.

~~~
SCHiM
Human decision making is terrifyingly biased. The fear that currently grips
the world and its leaders is perfect cover for leaders bent on a totalitarian
streak.

'Doing what is right', 'fighting this and that'.

Your own point made here is evidence that you too are at least partially in
this state of mind, given that you equate our current situation to being on a
sinking ship.

A number of questions come to mind:

Are we really in such a dire situation?

Is compromising on rights justified to get rid of this situation?

About 1. Some countries got hit very hard, communities ripped apart and
families devastated. That's not even considering the drawn out consequences of
the economic downturn. The situation is dire.

But on 2, it's much easier: I don't want you or anyone else to know about my
stuff. Its nobodies business but my own. I completely opposed to any form of
control in the name or for the sake of fighting this. Any technical measure I
will oppose, probably quite successfully. I reject the premise that we're able
to make effective decisions right now that are not clouded in fear, are not
too drastic and can be modeled to effectively respect our rights.

~~~
mytailorisrich
It's a question of priority, not ideology or naivety or fear.

There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear.

In the US and Western Europe we are factually on a sinking ship. The economy
and society as a whole are sinking. This must stop as soon as possible.

If tools like tracking apps allow to reopen sooner while controlling the
pandemic then this ought to be the priority.

This is a minimal compromise of rights for a limited time only (the 'limited
time' part is what ought to be the safeguard).

The fear, and frankly paranoia, is not on the side of being in favour of these
tools, it is on the side of rejecting them for ideological reasons. It's
seeking a pyrrhic victory: "Ah everything collapsed but at least no-one could
track me on my commute to my long lost job!".

~~~
SCHiM
Most stringently disagree. There are numerous examples in history where do-
good measures have later been abused in the most abhorrent manner possible. In
fact, I'm living in a place whose history is influenced by one of these
examples[1].

Our ideology, ideas and what we do and don't find acceptable in this world are
what matters. We can't sacrifice our rights in the name of necessity because
it just doesn't stop. ever. There will always be disease. There will always be
terrorists. There will always be criminals, child pornography and drugs.

As an example of deaths that our system does find acceptable just look at the
amount of deaths caused by drunk driving. It's technologically perfectly
feasible to equip every car with a breathalyzer, but we don't. The number of
deaths from the current disease is obviously higher, but that too will pass,
the cars will still be there.

History is also littered with disaster and recovery. Doesn't mean every
disaster has to happen, also doesn't mean things have to be sacrificed to stop
one either. In the end that's my stance on this: rather face this current
disaster, than the one we'd be constructing when we sacrifice our rights.

And that's just how it is, as far as I'm concerned.

[1] [https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-
ii-...](https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-we-did-
have-something-to-hide/)

------
zabana
I think anyone interested in the subject ought to play the Deus Ex game series
(especially the last two entries in the franchise)

------
mrcsharp
If you must err, err on the side of liberty, freedom, and privacy.

