Thread by @sedyst

One year into the pandemic, in Germany we are encountering debate around apps (see #LucaApp or #ImmunityPassports) that promise to solve the Corona crisis. The current debate forgets important questions for public interest 1/x

https://twitter.com/sedyst/status/1371517059436322819

Currently the debate is all about "data privacy". But, is that all that is at stake?
Are there other questions that journalists, politicians and civil society could be asking that could ensure these apps serve the public interest? 2/x

Serving the public interest does not begin and end with good data security and privacy but needs to start with whether the apps serve the purpose they are designed for and do so effectively. 3/x

Whether public interest can be served in an app ecosystem held in private hands, with its own governance and technical structures, is a different game altogether. 4/x

Because of the way apps, phones and associated infrastructure are set up, using apps for public health inevitably means moving the execution of public health measures outside of the control of health authorities. This has implications for the future of public health! 5/x

For example: who should have the burden of proof that the app is an actually useful intervention? Should it be with government authorities only, or also include the companies? 6/x

What are the criteria for the deployment's success and who is responsible? How will we be able to evaluate whether the app reached its goal? 7/x

Do we use corporate "user" metrics, or do we need other forms of public evaluation? Who should take responsibility to remove the app and the connected infrastructure, when it is no longer necessary? 8/x

Since surveillance capitalism seems to drive this ecosystem: How do we ensure purpose limitation, and avoid function creep by governments or companies alike? 9/x

What accountability mechanisms need to be in place, what mechanisms can be triggered when governments or companies misstep? 10/x

If the development or deployment is outsourced, what are financial and contractual structures to ensure that these apps are not subject to exploitative business models and investor interest, but to public interest? 11/x

How do we ensure privacy by design is not just a label (some tech companies like to throw around loosely), but subject to vetting by public interest technologists? 12/x

How can we ensure that the vetting of apps includes people from epidemiology, public health, sociology, members of civil society, especially from marginalized communities, but in a way that underlines that the stakes in the app ecosystem are different? 13/x

The apps promise to provide services to populations at scale even with a limited number of public health workers. The gap in personal support is fulfilled with call centers. But, how do we avoid apps transforming public health services into self-help and call center work? 14/x

How can we design a process for adopting apps for public health that includes public participation (beyond data points) and identifies responsible parties that the public can hold accountable - especially when unforeseen consequences emerge? 15/x

Most importantly, as we keep the health authorities accountable for their successes and failures, we need to make sure that apps do not get used for PR, to shift responsibility to the individual or to delegate responsibility to private companies. 16/x

This list, already too long, is just a beginning. It hopefully sparks some ideas for the debate we could be having as governments and tech companies embrace opportunities in COVID collaboration that may come at the expense of our public health services and liberties. 17/17