Contact-tracing or contact sport? Defections and accusations emerge among European COVID-chasing app efforts
- Reference: 1587369011
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/20/pepp_pt_dp_3t_robert/
- Source link:
One of the efforts is the [1]Pan-European Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing (PEPP-PT) group, a Germany-based effort to develop a contact-tracing protocol. The other is the [2]Decentralized Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing protocol, DP-3T , a Switzerland-based effort.
The Register has received correspondence from a DP-3T developer describing PEPP-PT as “a horrible privacy-invasive solution”.
At least two PEPP-PT participants are worried enough about it to have withdrawn from the effort.
CISPA has withdrawn from PEPP-PT. We will continue our work on [3]#DP3T , a decentralised, open source framework for contact tracing based on privacy by design [4]#CoronaApp .
DP-3T alphas are public for testing and feedback. [5]https://t.co/TCyUfa9b0i — Cas Cremers (@CasCremers) [6]April 18, 2020
I am personally disassociating from PEPP-PT. While I do believe strongly in the core ideas (international, privacy-preserving), I can't stand behind something I don't know what it stands for. Right now, PEPP-PT is not open enough, and it is not transparent enough. 1/3 — Marcel Salathé (@marcelsalathe) [7]April 17, 2020
Possible reasons for the discomfort, as [8]outlined by cryptography researcher Nadim Kobeissi, are that PEPP-PT is yet to reveal substantial details of its proposed scheme, appears not to have many truly active participants and advocates centralised access to some data.
But a PEPP-PT partner, France’s National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology [9]Inria has popped up a brief [10]paper [PDF] that says the whole decentralised distribution of information about who has COVID-19 has more downsides than centralised control of that data in the hands of health authorities. Inria’s even given its plans a new acronym to remember: the [11]ROBust and privacy-presERving proximity Tracing protocol - aka ROBERT.
As The Register reported last week, the European Commission has [12]published a toolbox to inform the development of contact-tracing apps across the bloc. That [13]document [PDF] considers PEPP-PT as a possible model.
A little perspective, too: The Register has read the [14]privacy policy for India’s national contact-tracing app “Aarogya Setu”. That document says the app collects users’ age, gender, phone number, profession and name. It tracks users with GPS and Bluetooth. And while that information is not uploaded to the government until a positive COVID test, “All personal information collected from you … at the time of registration will be retained for as long as your account remains in existence and for such period thereafter as required under any law for the time being in force.”
Which makes the European fight over this stuff quite pleasing in some ways! ®
Sponsored: [15]How To Accelerate Brilliant Digital Experiences With Low-Code
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/06/pan_european_privacy_preserving_proximity_tracing_plan/
[2] https://github.com/DP-3T/documents
[3] https://twitter.com/hashtag/DP3T?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[4] https://twitter.com/hashtag/CoronaApp?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[5] https://t.co/TCyUfa9b0i
[6] https://twitter.com/CasCremers/status/1251512294972022786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[7] https://twitter.com/marcelsalathe/status/1251045211767296002?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[8] https://nadim.computer/posts/2020-04-17-pepppt.html
[9] https://www.inria.fr/en
[10] https://github.com/ROBERT-proximity-tracing/documents/blob/master/Proximity-tracing-discussion-EN.pdf
[11] https://github.com/ROBERT-proximity-tracing/documents
[12] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/17/european_contact_tracing_app_spec/
[13] https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/ehealth/docs/covid-19_apps_en.pdf
[14] https://web.swaraksha.gov.in/ncv19/privacy/
[15] https://go.theregister.co.uk/tl/1936/-8552/how-to-accelerate-brilliant-digital-experiences-with-low-code?td=wptl1936
Re: Testing! testing!
Are you advocating for generalized testing? Because our Health Minister in France outlined yesterday evening why it's impossible: you can't test everybody without symptom. It's not possible to swab 60 millions of noses, get an instant result, and then test again the next day, until symptoms appear.
Not even going into how much keeping tab on the population that would require...
Re: Generalised testing
What's needed is a relatively cheap and simple home test that gives you a quick yes or no, 99% accurate. Then go to a more dedicated test facility for confirmation (or call health bods and they send someone (well protected) to you).
Sort of like a home pregnancy test, but probably a blood prick not pissing on a stick.
Same for antibody tests to see if you've had it already (acknowledging there's currently no evidence that antibodies = future immunity).
This is the only way to do entire population testing. The logistics of testing everyone at dedicated facilities are far too impractical.
I believe there has been some progress in this area, but not sure how far along it is, or how accurate the results are.
Re: Generalised testing
Or you could ask the Iranians to share their secret technology:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/17/iran_coronavirus_detector/
But back in the real world: generalized tests can /not/ be personal, because unlike pregnancy, it's actually contagious. What of all those people who will not test themselves, or not share the results, because they don't believe it's that bad, or can't afford to stay home, or whatever? That's really not a way to do an *entire* population testing.
And it would not be workable anyway: sending tens of thousands more people (those infected but without symptoms) to those dedicated test facilities would ensure long lines of worried people waiting to get inside, and swamp any health system. All the false positive would be certain to become true positive. And then of course, once confirmed, what would you do with them? If it's only to tell them to stay home and avoid contact with others, we're already doing just that.
As soon as you start thinking of the logistics of handling millions of people, in a foolproof way, it become rather clear that generalized tests just can't work (unless the Iranians got it right, ahah, j/k).
Re: Generalised testing
99% accuracy - with a nominal 70 million tests a day means 700 thousand false results. Assuming 1% of the population is actually infected gives 7000 false negatives. Plus 693,000 false positives. Every day.
Sorry but the maths don't make this doable. And if you say well test again the next day - that is no problem. Except that we've now got the results of that days testing added into the mix as well.
3 blue one brown - very simple explanation of Bayes theorem which explains this better than I can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZGCoVF3YvM
Re: Testing! testing!
Tracing and testing, they go hand in hand. Tracing tells you who to test. Tracing without testing is of limited value, especially if the tracing is just based on whose phone your phone has been in bluetooth range of. People are not going to be willing to use such an app if it's going to tell them to self-isolate on the basis that they might have been 10 metres away from an infected person, without testing to prove the possibility.
Re: Testing! testing!
The whole tracing idea is really a red herring and about wanting to be seeing doing something. We are dealing with a virus that is extremely infectious (though apparently not contagious) with quite a long incubation period where people are infectious without displaying symptoms. This makes testing for the presence of the virus useful for studies only, because by the time you have the results, the damage has been done.
More importantly, we have to assume that the disease is endemic. This means that, until we have reliable treatment and a vaccine that it will continue to spread and the only thing you can do is control the rate of infection. But, unfortunately, it also means that those particularly susceptible to the disease will, at some point, succumb and probably die.
Reliable testing for antibodies should help us determine whether sufficient "herd immunity" has been built up in specific areas. The results from Sweden, which continues to have the most relaxed approach to the pandemic, will be key on this. At the moment the presence of antibodies does not guarantee immunity, because we don't know enough about possible reinfection rates, nor whether it will sufficiently suppress the virus so that people who are immune can be considered as no longer infectious. The hope* is that Sweden has naturally passed peak infection.
This is why both Norway and Denmark have decided to reopen schools and nurseries. Though, it's worth pointing out that people in Scandinavia generally keep their distance from each other anyway and a great many have summer houses they can escape to.
* [1]Current death rate in Sweden continues to decline .
[1] https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/har-sprider-sig-coronaviruset/
And here we go again
Somebody told Unhygienix that his [1]fish is not fresh again, and now the whole village is in an uproar.
Such is life in the village of the indomitable.
[1] https://www.asterix.com/portfolio/ordralfabetix/?portfolioCats=32
Update
Note ETH, EPFL and KU Leuven also pulled out of the PEPP-PT project over the weekend.
Quick prediction.
Due to all the arguments going on, the contact tracing app will be ready just after the pandemic is over.
Re: Quick prediction.
DP-3T is almost ready and we are in discussion with some governments already on deployment.
'One of the efforts is the Pan-European Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing (PEPP-PT) group, a Germany-based effort to develop a contact-tracing protocol. The other is the Decentralized Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing protocol, DP-3T, a Switzerland-based effort.'
Puts me in mind of...
FRANCIS: Thanks, Reg.
BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: Fuck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
It will only work if the take-up matches the proportion required for Herd Immunity
i.e. 60% of the population for R0 = 2.5, or 82% if R0 = 5.7.
Why aren't the Telcos and manufacturers involved?
I'll tell you why. Because they already have the ability do do all of this, including knowing when you became infected. With the capabilities built into modern smart phones; Apple, Google, Samsung, LG, et al, and the wireless carriers already have 'contact tracing' covered nine ways from Sunday. If they have to admit that PEPP-PT will be an absolute waste of time and money, people might start to demand more privacy (good luck with that).
Some of you are going to claim that you 'only have a feature phone' or 'you don't carry it all of the time' but I think you also understand, and according to a quick search, 19% of people carry a feature phone, and 77% a smart phone, that this gives those in charge enough coverage to make much better decisions than they have been making to date. Of course, if they publicly admit what they actually do, every revolution thus far would be considered a pleasant afternoon in polite company.
Testing! testing!
While contact tracing is obviously useful, it seems more is spoken about it than the value of knowing who actually has C19 as soon as possible. I realise developing a simple, fast, effective and economical test is not that easy but catching it earlier and prevent contact sooner would reduce the potential number of contacts significantly.
But then what government doesn't like to keep tabs on it's population?