What entity should have final authority over a Contact Tracing program
Ryan Carrier
Public
Seen by 18
In almost all jurisdictions, the entity responsible for public health is the authority. In the UK, it appears that GCHQ is responsible for the contact tracing digital technology. This would appear to me to be NOT best practice. It screams of mission creep and screams of a lack of trust-building. I have added audit lines 221 and 222 to try to address this issue. I am calling for a vote here to draw your attention to these two issues which I think will highlight the discussion.
Poll Created Sat 30 May 2020 2:54PM
Should the final Authority of a Contact Tracing program reside with an entity tasked with maintaining the public health? Closed Thu 4 Jun 2020 9:02AM
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Yes | 66.7% | 4 |
|
||
|
|
No | 16.7% | 1 |
|
||
|
|
I need more information | 16.7% | 1 |
|
||
| Undecided | 0% | 12 |
|
6 of 18 people have participated (33%)
Dorothea Baur Mon 1 Jun 2020 9:43AM
Given that these authorities will be crucial in making sense of the data collected, I think this is desirable.
Adam Leon Smith Wed 3 Jun 2020 8:15AM
In a scenario where a public HA is not trusted by the populace, or implements an unethical solution, it should be possible for employers or other organisations to fill the gap.
Poll Created Sat 30 May 2020 2:59PM
Should a Signals, Communications or Surveillance entity be the final authority in a Contact Tracing program Closed Thu 4 Jun 2020 9:02AM
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
No, but they may oversee the technology on behalf of the public health authority | 71.4% | 5 |
|
||
|
|
No they should not be involved at all | 14.3% | 1 |
|
||
|
|
I need more information | 14.3% | 1 |
|
||
| Yes | 0.0% | 0 | ||||
| Undecided | 0% | 11 |
|
7 of 18 people have participated (38%)
Cari Sun 31 May 2020 5:41PM
I need examples of who this might apply to. I am open to a pragmatic way of governing the deployment of this tech, so long as there are enforceable limits in place.
Dorothea Baur Mon 1 Jun 2020 9:45AM
The final authority should rest with public health because the purpose of the whole contact tracing is public health-related. But other entities can collaborate.
Shea Brown Mon 1 Jun 2020 11:53PM
Here I'm assuming that the public health authority is exercising oversite (no blank check).
Ryan Eagan · Wed 3 Jun 2020 1:31PM
I think in both cases, the challenge is what kind of government are we working with? In the US, I think establishing a committee of folks from CDC, HHS, Senate/Congressional members, etc. working with an Independent Oversight Board makes for a model that provides the most transparency and safety for the public. That's just one example, and at a federal level. At least in the US, we can imagine something similar at state and lower levels, where the final authority can be a combination of agencies sitting together, bringing a balance of interests and perspectives to public health and safety.
In other countries, this may not be the case. So we can only lay groundwork for questions that will help expose potential conflicts of interest, accumulation of authoritative power and potential threats to continued violation of civil and human rights through potential privacy and surveillance.
Does that make sense?