Blind-sided by privacy? Digital contact tracing, the Apple/Google API and big tech’s newfound role as global health policy makers

Abstract

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, governments have turned their attention to digital contact tracing. In many countries, public debate has focused on the risks this technology poses to privacy, with advocates and experts sounding alarm bells about surveillance and mission creep reminiscent of the post 9/11 era. Yet, when Apple and Google launched their contact tracing API in April 2020, some of the world's leading privacy experts applauded this initiative for its privacy-preserving technical specifications. In an interesting twist, the tech giants came to be portrayed as greater champions of privacy than some democratic governments. This article proposes to view the Apple/Google API in terms of a broader phenomenon whereby tech corporations are encroaching into ever new spheres of social life. From this perspective, the (legitimate) advantage these actors have accrued in the sphere of the production of digital goods provides them with (illegitimate) access to the spheres of health and medicine, and more worrisome, to the sphere of politics. These sphere transgressions raise numerous risks that are not captured by the focus on privacy harms. Namely, a crowding out of essential spherical expertise, new dependencies on corporate actors for the delivery of essential, public goods, the shaping of (global) public policy by non-representative, private actors and ultimately, the accumulation of decision-making power across multiple spheres. While privacy is certainly an important value, its centrality in the debate on digital contact tracing may blind us to these broader societal harms and unwittingly pave the way for ever more sphere transgressions.

Early Perceptions of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps in German-Speaking Countries: Comparative Mixed Methods Study

“…Indeed, the voluntariness of contact tracing apps is also debated and emphasized by experts, including what voluntariness means in this context [ 61 - 63 ]. Nevertheless, ethicists have more recently criticized this emphasis on privacy and pointed to other ethical issues that were left aside in app development, such as safety and effectiveness [ 60 , 64 ], social justice issues [ 65 , 66 ], or the potentially problematic policy influence of Apple and Google in that context [ 18 , 67 ].…”

“…Thus, even though the performances of the apps are privacy-friendly, those who are generally skeptical towards digital tools and surveillance still expect them to be dangerous, despite the crucial efforts of app developers and policymakers. This points to the underlying and unsolved issues of regulating digital tools, data ownership, and nontransparent use and economization of data [ 67 ].…”

Mapping value sensitive design onto AI for social good principles

“…Stigmatisation and discrimination relate to the value of fairness [e.g. 64 – 66 ]. Some values, such as the right of association or security against hacking and misuse, are less clearly related to one of the SDGs but could perhaps be subsumed under nonmaleficence.…”

Digital contact-tracing during the Covid-19 pandemic: an analysis of newspaper coverage in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

“…Experts highlighted the low data quality and Bluetooth technology's inaccuracy for proximity tracing, and that including citizen's self-diagnosis along with official validated tests propagates false positives. [7,10] Furthermore, although a significant percent of the population needs to participate for efficacy, is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint…”