CDC contact tracing criteria give nod to Apple-Google approach
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week published a paper outlining key features public health organizations should look for in a COVID-19 contact tracing platform, with the recommendations closely following methodology implemented in Apple and Google's exposure notification system.
In its publication, titled "Preliminary Criteria for the Evaluation of Digital Contact Tracing Tools for COVID-19" (PDF link), the CDC details guidance on "minimum" and "preferred" criteria to be implemented in contact tracing apps and platforms. The information was pulled from "preliminary research" and discussions with contact tracing and informatics experts.
As noted by CNBC, the CDC recommends organizations rely on the "PACT" protocol to facilitate bidirectionally anonymized Bluetooth-enabled proximity tracking. Apple and Google took inspiration from PACT, an open-source protocol developed with help from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, when developing their joint exposure notification APIs.
In addition to anonymous reporting and notifications, preferred tools can be configured for real-time synchronization of data with public health authorities, support data export when opt-in consent is received, provide automated reminders to exposed contacts, support OAuth-secured programmatic data transfer, and allow users the ability to delete or revoke consent at any time. Further, the CDC recommends an open source architecture with offline data entry and cross-platform compatibility, much like Apple and Google's project.
Similar to other methods currently under evaluation around the world, the Apple-Google initiative seeks to track the spread of a disease, in this case COVID-19, by maintaining a history of who an infected person has come into contact with over set a period of time.
Importantly, the system allows for anonymous automated notification based on history of proximity to an index patient, or someone who has tested positive for the virus. Opt-in participation, secure local databases and anonymized device identifiers work together to create a secure, private platform for proximity-based notifications.
A key aspect of the Apple-Google solution is decentralization, with users able to store gathered contact information -- anonymized Bluetooth identifiers -- on their phones and compare that data against up-to-date exposure broadcast keys pulled from a PHA server. Those keys come from infected users who elect to upload a list of their recent contacts, which are held for a 14-day period.
Some countries, like the U.K., France and Norway, are pushing for a centralized network that stores user information on a server maintained by government authorities. Others, like Germany and Italy, are on board with the Apple-Google format.
The CDC falls short of recommending one method over another and instead suggests what appears to be a hybridized system. For example, the minimum criteria for contact follow-up notes PHAs should be able to "initiate direct, manual follow-up with known contacts," suggesting a centralized solution. However, as CNBC notes, the aforementioned contact notification criteria stresses implementation of an "anonymous automated notification" feature that would see integration in a decentralized method.
Along with the CDC outline, Apple and Google's system might soon face regulatory hurdles under the Consumer Data Protection Act, a proposed bill that aims to "provide all Americans with more transparency, choice, and control over the collection and use of their personal health, geolocation, and proximity data."
Apple and Google this week released initial APIs for their exposure notification system ahead of a public launch in mid-May.
In its publication, titled "Preliminary Criteria for the Evaluation of Digital Contact Tracing Tools for COVID-19" (PDF link), the CDC details guidance on "minimum" and "preferred" criteria to be implemented in contact tracing apps and platforms. The information was pulled from "preliminary research" and discussions with contact tracing and informatics experts.
As noted by CNBC, the CDC recommends organizations rely on the "PACT" protocol to facilitate bidirectionally anonymized Bluetooth-enabled proximity tracking. Apple and Google took inspiration from PACT, an open-source protocol developed with help from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, when developing their joint exposure notification APIs.
In addition to anonymous reporting and notifications, preferred tools can be configured for real-time synchronization of data with public health authorities, support data export when opt-in consent is received, provide automated reminders to exposed contacts, support OAuth-secured programmatic data transfer, and allow users the ability to delete or revoke consent at any time. Further, the CDC recommends an open source architecture with offline data entry and cross-platform compatibility, much like Apple and Google's project.
Similar to other methods currently under evaluation around the world, the Apple-Google initiative seeks to track the spread of a disease, in this case COVID-19, by maintaining a history of who an infected person has come into contact with over set a period of time.
Importantly, the system allows for anonymous automated notification based on history of proximity to an index patient, or someone who has tested positive for the virus. Opt-in participation, secure local databases and anonymized device identifiers work together to create a secure, private platform for proximity-based notifications.
A key aspect of the Apple-Google solution is decentralization, with users able to store gathered contact information -- anonymized Bluetooth identifiers -- on their phones and compare that data against up-to-date exposure broadcast keys pulled from a PHA server. Those keys come from infected users who elect to upload a list of their recent contacts, which are held for a 14-day period.
Some countries, like the U.K., France and Norway, are pushing for a centralized network that stores user information on a server maintained by government authorities. Others, like Germany and Italy, are on board with the Apple-Google format.
The CDC falls short of recommending one method over another and instead suggests what appears to be a hybridized system. For example, the minimum criteria for contact follow-up notes PHAs should be able to "initiate direct, manual follow-up with known contacts," suggesting a centralized solution. However, as CNBC notes, the aforementioned contact notification criteria stresses implementation of an "anonymous automated notification" feature that would see integration in a decentralized method.
Along with the CDC outline, Apple and Google's system might soon face regulatory hurdles under the Consumer Data Protection Act, a proposed bill that aims to "provide all Americans with more transparency, choice, and control over the collection and use of their personal health, geolocation, and proximity data."
Apple and Google this week released initial APIs for their exposure notification system ahead of a public launch in mid-May.
Comments
The only hope of such a system having a material impact on public health and safety is if the vast majority of the public recognizes and respects they have a personal responsibility to protect others. But, with armed militias invading state legislative houses demanding an end to public health policies, that sense of responsibility is obviously not universal in the U.S.
So what is more important to us: personal privacy (which is a myth anyway) or public health and safety -- as well as our economy (because, without effective testing and tracing the economy will be under continuous attack by the virus.)?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/singapore-built-a-coronavirus-app-but-it-hasnt-worked-so-far-11587547805
Sending government agents to individuals homes to do human tracking has become the phase two necessity. Can they knock on your door and force their way in if necessary?
In South Korea they've had a significant issue with people leaving their smartphones at home to avoid being "tracked" according to news reports so even in relative police states the 60% participation needed for truly reliable results hasn't been reached, and I suspect it has much to do with the personally identifiable tracking they want to do.
So now S. Korea is forcibly applying wristbands, ala US criminal house arrest, to keep track of them.
https://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-wristbands-coronavirus-catch-people-dodging-tracking-app-2020-4
Is George willing to wear a government wristband, and when the next local or national "emergency" according to some authority arises be prepared to do it again? And again? Are you so afraid that the possibility that someone might die is enough for you to encourage the limiting of freedom of movement and gathering, and the denial of personal privacy and choice, all of which would require new American law?
If you are I'd question why you'd be so willing to sacrifice everyone else's privacy permanently, and whether you may be endorsing a Singapore-like police state, or even leaning more towards the China model. I think that's the only way your ideas could work., and that doesn't sound like something that would be part of a Democrat's Presidential platform, or is it? I already know that answer, so what exactly is YOUR agenda? Something you're not telling us? It's apparently not simply changing administration. What President would endorse that? What Senator or Congressman would, at least openly? Would your questioning of government decisions and open rebellion against it in words and deed be tolerated under a China model? Would you even have the opportunity to change Administrations under the China model? In 6 months your Administration problem will likely be taken care of. Not so much your privacy if you're so willing to give it up so easily. The answer is not to be a scared rabbit and give away a basic right but instead to put aside your stupid ideologies for the moment and allow the country to come together and work towards the same goal and with the same voice. Sure there may be temporary pain. There always has been, but never enough for us to give up.
We've had far greater threats in the US during our history: World Wars 1 and 2 (were you in favor of Japanese internment?), the Vietnam protests (was shooting college students justifiable? Obviously not as it changed the entire direction), The Great Depression (which led to protections for the least of us), our Civil War (which resulted in greater freedoms for those who had been denied them and which we still fight for). Were any of those worth permanently giving up on the protections we are guaranteed under our Constitution? For you perhaps, probably a good thing you weren't in charge during any of those events.
If we could all just stop with the silly and dishonest FUD of "OMG, Google or Apple is tracking me", giving your personal location and your contact names to the government, then the Apple/Google system has just as good a chance at being successful as any other IMO simply due to its anonymous and private nature. Properly informed, users should be far more comfortable with what our techs have designed rather the methodology involving personal tracking and enforcement employed by some governments. Have an inherent trust in your fellow Americans. We are not all as dumb or clueless as you like to portray us as. We've historically come together when the worst is upon us and if we're scared about Apple/Google tracing it's due to ignorance. Teach us or get out of the way and allow someone else to. Don't attempt to frighten us into giving up. You are not helping, which would make you part of the problem.
So continue with misdirection, false claims, political demagogue-ery, and "whaddabouts" concerning this and other things and the Apple/Google exposure notification plan is probably bound for being no more effective as just about everyone else's, and that won't be the only Covid outreach that fails. If that's your goal you're right on track. If it's not then think before FUD.
Just quarantine herself? And give up her health insurance the income she needs to feed, clothe and house herself and family? Store clerks often don't have that option.
It's a two-week quarantine and not a lifetime, and your imaginary store clerk is unlikely to have health insurance paid by her employer, more likely through the Heath Care Marketplace if any at all. And because you are an American you have the option of moving to another place with less privacy and liberty protection if you are that afraid, then come back once it's over if you wish. No need for you to force me to give up mine too. Cool huh? We both get what we want and in my case what I've traditionally been entitled to, for the most part, my entire life. You won't make me change my liberties and you get to protect yourself. Win-win.
So another well-reasoned, logically argued, and detailed post with reliable, professional, and fact-filled sources linked is answered with a trite single-digit sentence reply lacking anything of substance. Thanks George for the hard work. Don't feel insulted that I personally still trust the professionals and experts represented in the sources I linked for you rather than George of the Internet.
The people losing jobs those who work for small businesses that are going to go bankrupt if these lockdowns continue much longer. How about all the hospitals that laid off most of the staff because they can’t pay them without elective surgeries? Some of these hospitals will close forever.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-employee-paid-leave
The act is highly selective in who is covered. Let a clerk at Walmart, Amazon or McD's or a nursing home fail to report to work and see how much she is paid. LOL...
Read the link. ALL of it. You lost this one.
Except in the tiniest of companies, and most of those were already ordered closed as non-essential, you won't be fired or lose your pay for going into quarantine due to orders from either a government authority or a doctor. For that matter you can't be fired for your mental breakdown that requires hospitalization either. Great news eh George?
EDIT: I, of course, meant "you" in the general sense, not you personally.