contact tracing

Contact tracing coronavirus – Big Tech giants to the rescue?

Surely the century’s deadliest pandemic calls for some of Big Tech’s strongest firepower? As governments around the world start looking toward exit strategies without a vaccine for COVID 19 yet available, Apple, Google and Facebook are stepping in to fill the gap. But will contact tracing work? And what about data privacy? The social credit system in China may well make tracking apps and symptom reporting more readily acceptable. But other countries must tread the fine line between individual privacy and communal protection.

The use of technology to help combat the highly infectious coronavirus, began even before its status as a pandemic was established. The tracking ability of apps is clearly helpful in tracing the path of infection as it moves from person to person. This is called contact-tracing in medical circles and is not new. Contact tracing was used in the fight against HIV and the 2015 Ebola outbreak in Africa. It involves asking people who test positive for the names of everyone with whom they have recently been in contact. People who may then have been exposed to the disease are traced and contacted in order to provide them with advice on how to proceed.

This has traditionally been done by human beings. The provision of advice on an individual basis is still best done by people rather than apps. In Massachusetts for example, 1000 contact tracers have been hired to interview people who’ve become infected with coronavirus. But given the speed of transmission of COVID 19, digital tracing methods are increasingly attractive. Contact tracing can also work if one self-reports, assuming of course that one is reasonably honest and accurate. For example, the Governor of Rhode Island, asked the entire population to keep a journal of the people they met and the places they visited each day. If they fall sick, this journal can be handed over to health officials and used to trace those who may have been infected.

Carnegie Mellon University very happy with Facebook and Google survey results so far.

Facebook has begun work with Carnegie Mellon University in the US to create a map, showing the proportion of people who say they have experienced coronavirus symptoms, by State. The data was gathered from more than a million Facebook users who completed a survey compiled by Carnegie Mellon University. It is voluntary and depends on respondents accurately reporting their symptoms. Nevertheless, researchers at the university say that they are very happy with both Facebook and Google survey results so far. Updated on a daily basis, these results, combined with other data sources, provide real time indications of COVID 19 infections. This information helps health officials and local governments make decisions about how to allocate limited resources such as ventilators, testing equipment and face masks.

Google and Apple have recently announced their joint effort to use Bluetooth technology  in order to create the foundation (application programming interface) for contact-tracing apps that will work across both iOS and Android phones. The idea is to use low energy Bluetooth waves, which have a range of about 9 meters, to track whether a smartphone owner has come into contact with someone who may be infected with coronavirus.

No one knows for sure if Bluetooth will work for digital contact-tracing.

Importantly, Apple and Google say that the system will be anonymized. This means there will be no identifying data stored on a server and it won’t involve location data.  Data experts agree however that Bluetooth was not designed with this in mind. So no one knows for sure if it will work, warns Bennett Cyphers of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. ‘It is highly experimental and we certainly shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket’, he says. Nevertheless Cyphers agrees that the current Apple/Google initiative is ‘relatively good’, in terms of transparency and decentralization.

Currently in the development phase, it is later that issues concerning consent will come to the fore. ‘Consent is going to be critical at every stage’ emphasises Bennett.  This means that even after a user has opted in for such an app, it should still be possible to change one’s mind and op out, taking one’s data with you. Further, any new data collection from an individual who has previously given consent should require further requests for consent. There should also be no compunction to download the app, this includes from your boss or child’s school. Voluntary use of these apps, which is clearly linked to trust, is vital for success.

Data scientists concerned about slow eroding of data privacy over time.

Data Scientist and researcher at the Brookings Institute in the US, Alex Engler, supports what he terms ‘a cohesive effort for digital contact tracing’ because of the relative ease and low cost of such projects. However, he worries about ‘the slow eroding of data privacy over time’, especially if the pandemic drags on over a period of years.  Engler also points out that privacy issues can arise simply from combining different sets of data. So-called re-association can take place with just a few other data points. Data Protection Officer for Uber, Europe, Simon Hania, agrees that ‘Anonymized data is not necessarily innocuous data’.

Clearly digital contact tracing requires consideration of multiple issues. In the European Union, Member States are approaching the challenge individually. The Netherlands, for example recently trialed 3 pilot apps but concluded that none reached the requisite privacy requirements. Anna Buchta, Senior Official at the European Data Protection Supervisor, notes that from one member state to another, there will likely be slightly different combinations of technological and non-technological solutions to COVID 19.

GDPR will not stand in the way of combating COVID 19 – European Data Protection Supervisor confirms.

But she points out that the GDPR regulations, in force across the EU since 2018, are in fact ‘quite flexible so should not stand in the way of combating COVID 19’. A European-wide contact-tracing app has been proposed, but its adoption by Member States is voluntary. Buchta stresses however that before such technology can be really useful, definite exit strategies will need to be agreed. Experts from both the US and the EU ultimately agree that technology will always remain only part of a co-ordinated response to COVID 19.      

Universal Basic Income – a solution to the economic chaos caused by Corona?

The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been around for decades. For supporters on both sides of the political spectrum it is seen as a legitimate response to new trends in work and pay that characterize globalization. And this was before coronavirus hit. The Spanish parliament’s recent agreement to introduce UBI for the poorest segments of society has renewed interest once more in this idea.

Universal Basic Income involves giving people a guaranteed income in the form of regular cash payments. Unlike traditional welfare payments it is not tied to specific needs like housing or food. Recipients can spend it however they want. As the pandemic spreads and unemployment rises, especially amongst blue collar workers, UBI is gaining ground. It’s simplicity means that administration costs are reduced. Although others argue that it may result in reckless spending and discourage people from looking for work.

Spain’s planned UBI would be well below the minimum wage.

Spain’s left wing coalition government has agreed however that they will roll out a modest UBI in the region of 440 euros a month for those in greatest need. This certainly doesn’t constitute a living wage. In Spain the minimum wage is 950 euros a month. However in a country where 30% of children are at risk of poverty, deputy Prime Minister, Pablo Iglesias says the measure was needed even before the arrival of the corona pandemic. Some commentators argue that other EU countries like France and Germany have had basic income support for the most vulnerable for years. Spanish Labor Minister Yolanda Diaz calculates that some 5 million of Spain’s 47 million population may be eligible for this UBI.

I recently heard two staunch labourites talking about the future of work: Guy Standing, author of The Precariat (2011) and long-time advocate of basic income and Paul Mason, author of PostCapitalism (2015) and Clear Bright Future (2019). Mason stresses the importance of human agency and blames neoliberalism for the ‘hollowing out’ thereof. Standing argues that the introduction of a universal basic income can counter these tendencies. Citing a pilot study in India as evidence, he points to its transformative effects in terms of welfare, equity, growth and emancipation.

Beware the ‘new dangerous class’ – Standing.

Standing makes a simple but compelling argument for the difference between work and labour. Work is all human activity including that often done by women within the home like cooking, cleaning and child-rearing. Labour is what the market recognises as worthy of financial remuneration and thus excludes all those who are not part of this system. He calls for the values of work to be placed above those of labour. He also raised concerns about ‘a new dangerous class’, who rely almost entirely on money wages. The so-called precariat’s relationship with the state is characterized by an ever increasing loss of rights. As the world economy heads into ever deeper recession, the precariat’s position may well prove ever more precarious.

Emancipatory value of UBI far greater than its monetary value – Standing.

The central idea behind UBI is that a greater range of human endeavour will be automatically rewarded. It extends current, limited definitions of work and provides a safety net so that each can follow his/her own passions and talents. This might include spending more time with one’s family or going back to full time study. Strangely enough, coronavirus has inadvertently presented many with just these opportunities. UBI assumes that human beings, given the chance, will choose to self-actualise, to improve their own lives and those of their loved ones.

Citing three recent unconditional basic income schemes in India, funded by UNICEF, Standing claims the primary value of UBI is what he calls, its emancipatory effect. It is not, he explains, a panacea. Rather, it should be an important part of a package of reforms that can be used as development aid and as regional policy in the European Union, with regards to migration.

But what of UBI in developed economies? The Finnish government recently completed a 2 year pilot study in which monthly payments of 560 euros were made to 2000 unemployed people. The trial was launched by a centre-right government at a cost of approximately 20 million euros. The idea was to see whether unconditional income might incentivise unemployed people to take up work. Two years on, it was found that this group was happier but employment rates were no better or worse than a control group. God is in the details.

Is money better spent on improving Universal Basic Services?

Anna Coote, co-author of Universal Basic Income: A Union Perspective wrote in the Guardian newspaper of the findings of a meta-study (May, 2019) conducted for a global trade union federation. Sixteen practical projects, each of which has tested various ways of distributing regular cash payments to individuals across different income groups, were investigated. No evidence of the sustainability of such schemes nor of their ability to achieve lasting improvements in wellbeing and equality was found. The report concludes that the money would be better spent on improving Universal Basic Services (UBS). As Coote clearly states, ‘Collective provision offers more cost-effective, socially just, sustainable ways of meeting people’s needs than leaving individuals to buy what they can afford in the marketplace.’ 

So we return to familiar ideological divisions regarding the  advantages or disadvantages of markets and the importance of individual vs communal choice. Economists on both the left and the right have argued for UBI as a source of personal empowerment. It allows greater choice for citizens – concerning work, caring, leisure and education. Such views clearly chime with the humanist perspective of someone like Paul Mason. Yet they have also found an ear amongst the entrepreneurs and venture capitalists of Silicone Valley, Mark Zuckerberg included.

Can UBI help to trim the excesses of the welfare state?

From a traditional libertarian perspective, UBI may be seen as a solution to the intrusiveness and inefficiency of the welfare state. Furthermore, in an age of what some economists have termed ‘cognitive capitalism’, characterised by the growing importance of cognitive labour rather than traditional material production, UBI could reward the growing amount of unpaid, communal work that increasingly characterises the internet age.    

UBI is perhaps better understood as an umbrella concept that includes a variety of options. Key questions like what level of payment to use, how it might be combined with or even replace other social security benefits and how the tax and pension system should treat it, require further research. Will the current pandemic provide the kind of incentives needed to experiment more widely with some of these options? Ideologically attractive to humanists on both sides of the political spectrum, it is as complex as many other economic models and vulnerable to similar political manipulation. However UBI does provide a bold, more enlightened view of human endeavour. It acknowledges the large amounts of untapped wealth and potential that an increasingly globalised world has to offer, in spite of coronavirus.

EU corona

Carpe corona: will the EU seize this moment and lead?

Coronavirus has spread from the wet markets of Wuhan, China, to the world. Each day new measures to contain its spread are announced, each day the death toll rises. Life in the time of corona is strangely like pressing the pause button and the fast forward button at the same time. In one sense lock down and social isolation have created a feeling of timelessness. At the same time there is an incredible sense of urgency as governments, scientists and health experts rush to find measures to contain the pandemic.  ‘Emergencies fast-forward historical processes’ as Harari put it. The EU project is one of the most ambitious in modern history. Will the coronavirus help to fast forward the creation of a stronger, more integrated European Union? One with the confidence to lead when leadership is so sorely needed?    

As a pandemic, corona virus is a global phenomenon that requires a global response. Although nations have thus far responded individually, there is increasing pressure on leaders to unite and share expertise and resources in the face of an enemy that knows no borders. A microcosm of the global system, and the new epicenter of the corona outbreak, the EU has thus far been characterized by a lack of real leadership at supranational level. Member states have hunkered down with national governments coordinating their own individual responses to the virus. But there are signs that this is changing.

“Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures.” – Christine Lagarde

Last Friday, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced a €750 billion stimulus package. It was accompanied by a statement from ECB president, Christine Lagarde, that, ‘Extraordinary times require extraordinary action’.  Greek bonds will also be included in the bank’s asset purchases for the first time. Further, EU Commission president, Ursula von de Leyden stated that the EU is also willing to consider backing common debt issuance in the eurozone in the form of coronabonds. ‘If they help and if they are correctly structured, they will be used.” Von de Leyden said. Perhaps more importantly, two of the staunchest resistors to debt pooling in the eurozone, Germany and the Netherlands, agreed for the first time last week, to consider this option. 

Closer fiscal union has been a sticking point for a long time in the eurozone. The wealthy northern member states have been reluctant to take on the debt of the ‘less disciplined’ southern economies. However countries like Italy, Spain and Greece provide markets for much of the north’s goods and services. Not to mention cheap holidays, second homes, food and drink.  The financial crisis highlighted the north/south divide. A civil war, in financial terms, broke out between the two regions. The sacrificial lamb was Greece – small and guilty enough to be bullied but not big enough to require a serious overhaul of the eurozone debt mechanisms. Covid 19 is different. It cares little about who has balanced their books and who hasn’t. The pandemic is threatening all sectors of eurozone economies and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

How things have changed!

One of the most tangible and dramatic results of the financial crisis and the eurozone’s struggle to coordinate a response to it, was Brexit. It did not happen immediately but June, 2016, saw Britain vote to leave the European Union. The ensuing process has been long and arduous. Just a little over two weeks ago, I attended an event dedicated to discussion of a final Brexit deal. At the time, British Ambassador to the Netherlands, Peter Wilson, described himself as ‘chipper’, in the wake of the clarity brought by recent British elections. He reiterated the UK’s desire for a Canada-style deal, based on precedent. There was substantial discussion about Prime Minister, Boris Johnson’s ability to ‘sell’ the deal back home, given the no compromise attitude that brought him to power. How things have changed since!  

Boris Johnson, like his counter-parts across the globe, is now struggling to coordinate an effective response to corona virus. Britain will not be eligible for the above mentioned stimulus package nor indeed any further relief, yet to come. Corona is changing the landscape of Johnson’s premiership, shifting it away from nationalist concerns over sovereignty and escape from the long arm of the European Court of Justice. It now finds itself confronted by a pandemic that is putting the healthcare system and economy under pressure hitherto unimagined. Suddenly Brexit is revealed for what it really is: a somewhat misguided response to a yearning for Britain’s glorious past combined with a lack of strong leadership at EU level. 

Fortune favours the brave.

The Union which Britain voted to leave has struggled to provide the kind of comprehensive leadership so desperately needed by 27 different member states, all with different cultures and economies, particularly in times of crisis. The 2007/8 financial crisis was  its first real test.  The EU came out intact. But dithering, disagreement and division meant that recovery was arduous and the seeds of populist rancour were sown.

Covid 19  has unwittingly provided Europe with an opportunity to step forward with confidence and lead. Numerous commentators have already pointed out the gap in global leadership left by the US. A pandemic like corona provides good reasons for individual member states to look beyond their national borders to the greater opportunities that a united Europe would provide. Fortune, as they say, favours the brave. Europeans and their leaders would do well to find the courage now to lead Europe and the world into a post-corona future.   

Iran

Iran: Is the worst yet to come?

Recent elections and the shock arrival of the coronavirus in Iran have brought the country once more into the spotlight. I spoke with Iranian scholars and experts at De Balie recently who were equally divided on what the future holds for this ancient and beleaguered Middle Eastern power.

In recent years, Iran has made headlines with international sanctions regarding its development of a nuclear capability. In November last year widespread protests fuelled by exponential hikes in fuel prices were followed by the assassination of top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani by US forces in Iraq. A retaliatory attack by Iranian forces resulted in the downing of a passenger plane  in which over 100 Iranians were killed. More protests followed. It is estimated that  over 1500 Iranians have been killed by government clamp downs since November. With record low turnout at last week’s elections and a rising coronavirus death rate, Iran’s Islamic Republic is coming under increasing pressure.     

Described by many as ‘the least competitive election in years’ in Iran, over 7000 of  the 15 000 candidates who applied to run in the 2020 elections were disqualified by the Guardian Council. This is a 12-person board of experts in constitutional and Islamic law largely appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A survey of 140 000 people carried out earlier this month by Iranian state television indicated that 83% of participants would boycott the election. 

‘Iran is surrounded by evil disasters’ – Monsoureh Shojall

There is a deep sense of despair among Iranians. Long-time women’s rights activist, Monsoureh Shojall explains, ‘Iran is surrounded by evil disasters’. Certainly much has changed since the 2016 national elections. They promised hope of reform from within the Islamic government and a move toward a more open, prosperous economy. The 2015 Iranian nuclear deal had just been signed and the resulting lifting of sanctions paved the way for growth predictions of up to 6%. Voter turnout was reported to be 62%.

However the US has since pulled out of the nuclear deal (2018) and re-implemented a raft of sanctions against Iran. This, combined with high levels of corruption and mismanagement within the country, has resulted in soaring levels of unemployment and inflation. The IMF estimated a 9.5% contraction of Iran’s economy in 2019. Under these circumstances it is perhaps understandable that Shojall SAYS describes ‘negativity is a national trauma’ in Iran. However opinions on the country’s future are divided.

‘Iranian society is on a quest for democracy’ – Shervin Nekuee.

Some see the following months as the breaking point for Iran’s Islamic regime. It has struggled for over 40 years to maintain control. But for Iranian sociologist and writer, Shervin Nekuee, ‘Iranian society is on a quest for democracy’. He describes the current time as ‘a dark moment on an inspiring quest’. Iranian academic and research fellow, Damon Golriz, is even more hopeful of change. He argues that since December 2017 the country has ‘changed radically’. An era of dichotomy or bi-polar division has begun he explains, which involves 80% of Iranians under 40 demanding a complete change. ‘They want something totally new, a different life.’

Shervin Nekuee takes a long-term historical perspective in order to explain the current situation. His narrative begins in 1953, the year of the coup d’état in which the CIA allegedly took a hand via Operation Ajax. In the climate of the Cold War, the rise of the Communist Party in Iran was viewed with suspicion by the United States.  Fast forward to 1977 when Jimmy Carter describes Iran as ‘America’s island of stability’ in the Middle East. Only to find that two years later, the Islamic Revolution successfully dispelled any such notions. The American hostage crisis in the same year,  lasting for an incredible  444 days, compounds the growing tensions between the US and Iran. So too, does the Iran / Iraq war in which America supports Saddam Hussein. Trump’s recent withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal and the assassination of a member of the Iranian government is further evidence of failing Iran US relations. 

‘Trump is more popular in Iran than in Europe’ – Damon Golriz

But there are others who interpret events differently. Damon Golriz argues that the removal of Soleimani has ‘opened the doors for negotiation between Iran and the US as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia’. Generally acknowledged as the second most powerful man in Iran after the Ayatollah Khamenei and labelled a terrorist by the US, Golriz argues that Soleimani stood in the way of any serious structural reforms in Iran. Research Fellow in International Peace, Justice and Security group in the Hague, Golriz told me he has twitter accounts in Persian and in English. He sees that in Iran, Trump is far more popular than in Europe. For the simple reason that ‘they understand politics while  the Europeans focus on his morality’. 

The future of course is difficult to foresee. As our Iranian host, Bahram Sadeghi, tells us with typical irony, ‘My father always said, “Bahram, the worst is yet to come”’. In the case of Iran, this may, sadly be true. But Damon Golriz is positive about the strong and growing desire for change among the younger generation in Iran. He is also more positive about the shift in power dynamics that have occurred in the Middle East recently. Even skeptics like University of Amsterdam Senior lecturer, Paul Aarts, agree that with a Republican government likely to remain in place in the US,  the Islamic regime may be forced to agree to a deal that even moderates will accept. This is simply because Trump has shown he is willing to put his money where his mouth is, for better and for worse. 

fake news

Lies, damn lies and fake news.

As the coronavirus spreads, so information and disinformation about its causes, casualties and prognosis have spread with it. One epidemiologist has suggested fake news about the virus is just as contagious as the virus itself. Although false or misinformation has been with us for centuries, it was only in the last decade that the term ‘fake news’ was coined.  I recently heard from journalist and founding editor of BuzzFeed Canada, Craig Silverman, who was one of the first to use and study the phenomenon. On a visit to Amsterdam, he discussed the role of disinformation in this age of social media and how it affects our daily lives.  

Do we live in a post-truth world? This question is frequently raised. Yet, as writer, Steven Poole points out, there never has been ‘a golden age of transparency’. Fake news and scientific misinformation were serious problems for  Renaissance thinkers, along with our tendency toward confirmation bias. This may well be true but Craig Silverman’s account of the growth of the phenomenon on social media, highlight the importance of context.  Silverman begins his story in the small Macedonian town of Veles in 2014. With the closure of a factory, the town’s largest employer, many local residents found themselves out of work. However, a group of  young, tech savvy locals began to cash in on the money that could be made from creating fake websites that ran fake news. In this case, they created over a hundred pro-Trump websites in the run-up to the 2016 US elections.

A digital gold rush.

Designed to engage Trump supporters and ultimately generate revenue via Facebook and Google AdSense, Silverman describes the phenomenon as ‘a digital gold rush’.  His 2016 article ‘How teens in the Balkans are duping Trump supporters with fake news’, was one of the first instances in which the term, ‘fake news’ was used. His investigation of the phenomenon highlighted the economic incentives associated with the production of fake news. Consumers in the US are worth about four times as much as a user outside the country according to Facebook’s earnings reports. The young Macedonians who ran these sites told Silverman that they didn’t care about Trump but were simply interested in click rates which ultimately lead to cash.

This was an early example of what Silverman terms ‘the business model around manipulation’. Similar trends continue today. For example; the global trade in Amazon 4 and 5 star reviews. Or the renting out of one’s Facebook account for around 15$ a month to run advertisements. In 2014 he founded Emergent.Info, a web-based tool that tracks social share patterns over time and is thus able to verify or debunk rumors and conspiracies online. Silverman tells us that he found a certain type of website never seen before. They initially looked normal but were in fact 100% false.

He shows us the example of one such website, called National Report. Sites such as these not only have fake content but also fake journalists, fake reader comments and even false ‘corrections’ from those apparently involved in the incidents reported. ‘These sites were getting hundreds of thousands of hits’ he tells us. He mentions another example from Canada where two youths created a website that consistently earned thousands of dollars a month by making up fake stories about Canadian Prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

‘Authoritarian regimes have weaponized fake news’ – Craig Silverman

Silverman goes on to explain how US President, Donald Trump, then ‘took ownership of the term’, using it to deflect criticism and questions from the press. He also mentions the renting out of individual’s accounts in the Ukraine by Putin’s Russian government, in order to manipulate the Ukrainian elections. Indeed the journalist suggests that fake news has been ‘weaponised’ by authoritarian regimes who have used it not only to criminalize dissent but also to protect and promote their own power base.

A recent article in the Conversation explores how the Chinese authorities are using social media to ‘manage  information’ about the coronavirus and its spread. The ’50-cent army’ and volunteer ‘truth ambassadors’ have been mobilised in their rumour-busting efforts. Tencent has taken responsibility for providing ‘transparent’ communication on the virus. The government has told people to only post and forward information from official channels and warned of severe consequences for anyone found guilty of disseminating “rumours”. These include permanently blocking WeChat groups, blocking social media accounts, and possible jail terms.

Error has always been a part of journalism, indeed of all things human. But, as Silverman explains, traditionally, the press has remedied this by acknowledging errors made. Such an approach ensured accuracy and generated that all important ingredient: trust. The Canadian journalist spent ten years running a website called, Regret the Error which focused on mistakes made by journalists. During this time he noticed the seismic shift that occurred with the advent of social media. ’This was a ten year journey that really began to change when social media became such a big force’, he explains. Errors could no longer be corrected by news producers nor could the veracity of facts be checked before they were made available for public consumption. ‘All sorts of erroneous stuff is already out there and getting lots of attention on social media’. How then does one sort the real from the fake, the trusted from the untrusted?

What does healthy skepticism look like?

Clearly the virtual world has created opportunities hitherto unknown for both good and ill. The incredible reach of social media means that almost everyone can now participate.  The question is how best to manage this massive shift without sacrificing freedom or trust. Silverman argues that transparency and open discussion are essential. The Canadian journalist invites everyone to think about what ‘healthy skepticism looks like’.  He predicts a rise in what he terms ‘borderline misinformation’ in the future. But he still believes the internet can be a force for good in spite of its growing complexity. ‘Don’t be afraid of complexity!’ he urges. In a world of information disorder we don’t, it seems, have much choice.