Cultural Implications Regarding Privacy in Digital Contact Tracing Algorithms: Method Development and Empirical Ethics Analysis of a German and a Japanese Approach to Contact Tracing

Abstract

Background Digital contact tracing algorithms (DCTAs) have emerged as a means of supporting pandemic containment strategies and protecting populations from the adverse effects of COVID-19. However, the impact of DCTAs on users’ privacy and autonomy has been heavily debated. Although privacy is often viewed as the ability to control access to information, recent approaches consider it as a norm that structures social life. In this regard, cultural factors are crucial in evaluating the appropriateness of information flows in DCTAs. Hence, an important part of ethical evaluations of DCTAs is to develop an understanding of their information flow and their contextual situatedness to be able to adequately evaluate questions about privacy. However, only limited studies and conceptual approaches are currently available in this regard. Objective This study aimed to develop a case study methodology to include contextual cultural factors in ethical analysis and present exemplary results of a subsequent analysis of 2 different DCTAs following this approach. Methods We conducted a comparative qualitative case study of the algorithm of the Google Apple Exposure Notification Framework as exemplified in the German Corona Warn App and the Japanese approach of Computation of Infection Risk via Confidential Locational Entries (CIRCLE) method. The methodology was based on a postphenomenological perspective, combined with empirical investigations of the technological artifacts within their context of use. An ethics of disclosure approach was used to focus on the social ontologies created by the algorithms and highlight their connection to the question about privacy. Results Both algorithms use the idea of representing a social encounter of 2 subjects. These subjects gain significance in terms of risk against the background of a representation of their temporal and spatial properties. However, the comparative analysis reveals 2 major differences. Google Apple Exposure Notification Framework prioritizes temporality over spatiality. In contrast, the representation of spatiality is reduced to distance without any direction or orientation. However, the CIRCLE framework prioritizes spatiality over temporality. These different concepts and prioritizations can be seen to align with important cultural differences in considering basic concepts such as subject, time, and space in Eastern and Western thought. Conclusions The differences noted in this study essentially lead to 2 different ethical questions about privacy that are raised against the respective backgrounds. These findings have important implications for the ethical evaluation of DCTAs, suggesting that a culture-sensitive assessment is required to ensure that technologies fit into their context and create less concern regarding their ethical acceptability. Methodologically, our study provides a basis for an intercultural approach to the ethics of disclosure, allowing for cross-cultural dialogue that can overcome mutual implicit biases and blind spots based on cultural differences.

Smartphone Apps for Containing the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany: Qualitative Interview Study With Experts Based on Grounded Theory

“…An empirical investigation to delve deeper into how the dimensions underlying DCT apps, such as individualism, freedom, surveillance, or privacy, embody sociocultural concepts would be a valuable undertaking. We have already published initial approaches to describe the algorithmization of culture in DCT apps elsewhere [ 12 ].…”

“…The empirical subproject aimed to create a qualitative database to highlight critical points associated with the implementation of DCT. The ethical subproject focused on capturing the qualitative research findings and subjecting them to ethical analysis [ 11 , 12 ].…”

The Role of Transparency in Digital Contact Tracing During COVID-19: Insights from an Expert Survey

“…In this sense, as also stated by Latour, the design of technology can be understood as "society made durable" [19,25]. Certainly, regarding DCT, it has been demonstrated that diverse socio-culturally understandings of privacy and autonomy are integrated into algorithms designed to assess risk exposures [15]. However, due to the technical nature of these systems, such factors and their contributing influences primarily emerge as materialized outcomes, crystallizing in a specific arrangement of technological components that 'do' things (calculate risks, process personal health data etc.)…”

“…01KI20527), which took place from October 2020 to December 2021. Its primary objective was to gain a deeper understanding of the social, ethical, and technical aspects related to the use of DCT in the pandemic through a qualitative study [14,15,23]. To this end, the project focused on the German version of a DCT app, the "Corona-Warn-App", pursuing various research questions:…”

“…In the following empirical section, the qualitative quotes are presented in an abbreviated form for readability. Therefore, we use a combination of the interview number (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19), gender (m/f) and field of expertise (Journalism = Journ, Ethics = Eth, Computer Science = Comp, Legal Studies = Leg, Social Science = Soc, Medicine = Med). For example, an interview quote is declared as follows: (7,f,Soc), which means that it is a quote from the seventh interview, conducted with a female interviewee who had expertise in social science.…”