We’ve all heard the conspiracies about governments inserting microchips into vaccines so that they can track us and our daily activities. However, why would a government spare the expense to develop such an elaborate plan when they can use something as simple and innocuous as… a cellphone?
On Monday, January 10th, the House of Commons ethics committee held an emergency meeting regarding the collection of millions of citizens’ cell phone data by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).1 During the meeting, the committee voted for Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos and Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam to testify before them the purpose and details of the data collection.1,3
This incident originally began in December, when the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) requested the extension of their program for the collection of “depersonalized and de-identified” data1. At this time, it was revealed that location data from 33 million mobile devices had been gathered from telecom operators, such as Telus Communications, to monitor population movement from December 2020 to October 2021.1,4
The PHAC has stated that they intend to balance the protection of privacy with ensuring that they have the necessary data to gauge the effectiveness of public-health directives and manage the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.1 Additionally, they want to use mobile phone data for the next 5 years to study “other infectious diseases, chronic disease prevention and mental health”.4
Privacy Concerns
The request for an extension is raising concerns about privacy. Conservative MP John Brassard stated that information was being collected without their knowledge, and that Canadians were being tracked.3,5 Opposed to this, Liberal MP Greg Fergus has reasoned that the anonymous state of the data prevents identification, thus upholding the privacy of Canadians.3,5 However, there have also been concerns raised regarding the potential for the re-identification of depersonalized data.1,4
Discussions will continue Monday, January 17th, which will hopefully address concerns and shed light on how exactly the privacy of Canadians is or is not protected.5
Personal Thoughts
This topic is quite relevant to this class because, given that we all currently live in Canada and own a mobile device, it is likely that many of us have been impacted by this program.
As jokingly as I made the title and introduction, I think that there are many concerns about the actions of the PHAC. The government has essentially claimed that the collection of data is necessary to monitor and manage the pandemic, supporting the claim that national security takes precedence over personal privacy. They have bypassed any need to receive consent, or inform Canadians of their actions, by claiming that since the data collected is anonymous, the Privacy Act is unrelated.4 However, studies have shown that such information can be re-identified to a high degree of likelihood.6
Due to these issues, I would personally reject the extension of this program at this time. I do, however, understand the rationale and potential benefits that this initiative may provide. Ultimately, I think that my opinion might change depending on the details that are revealed in the days to come. Perhaps, if there is transparency and strong safeguards in place to protect privacy, I will look more favorably upon the data collection.
Conclusion
So, what do you think? Do you think that the government should be granted this extension? Or do you think they are up to something far more nefarious?
Let me know in the comments and thanks for reading!
References
- Woolf M. Ethics committee summons Duclos, Tam on mobile-phone data collection during pandemic. National Post [Internet]. 2022 Jan 13 [cited 2022 Jan 16]; Available from: https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/mps-call-for-commons-committee-to-launch-emergency-probe-of-use-of-mobile-data
- Mobile devices [Internet]. Electronic Frontier Foundation [cited 2022 Jan 16];Available from: https://www.eff.org/mobile-devices
- Bailey I. Ethics committee calls Duclos and Tam to testify on cellphone data collection. The Globe and Mail [Internet]. 2022 Jan 13 [cited 2022 Jan 16]; Available from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ethics-committee-calls-duclos-and-tam-to-testify-on-cellphone-data/
- Oli S. Canada’s public health agency admits it tracked 33 million mobile devices during lockdown. National Post [Internet]. 2021 Dec 27 [cited 2022 Jan 16]; Available from: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-public-health-agency-admits-it-tracked-33-million-mobile-devices-during-lockdown
- Opposition MPs push to suspend public health officials’ use of cellphone location data. Global News [Internet]. 2022 Jan 13 [cited 2022 Jan 16]. Available from: https://globalnews.ca/news/8508501/suspend-phac-cell-program-opposition-mps/
- Rocher L, Hendrickx JM, de Montjoye Y-A. Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models. Nature Communications 2019;10(1):3069.
I’ve always found it hilarious whenever I hear the notion that vaccines are just a way to implant microchips to track us, not even considering how cell phones work, considering the NUMEROUS apps that… well… track us. I used to work as a cell phone and computer repair tech, and the number of people I got in that were completely clueless on how a phone really works, makes me wonder how many people really do believe that microchip theory.
But anyways, in terms of the extension, it’s tough to say. My immediate thought being “Well, if we give them an extension, will they request further extensions? And then what other kinds of info will they try to collect, with or without our knowledge?” Kind of going into the idea of “If we give them an inch, they will take a mile.” And I’ve always tried to be very conscious of that.
I think your mention of consent is an interesting notion, especially considering the angle of a “study” that the government is taking. After all, consent is typically first and foremost when collecting data from studies (or publishing data online to be made publicly available for study), and its something that they’ve definitely bypassed.
And while, as you’ve mentioned, the government thinks location data is fairly innocuous to collect, it still demonstrates what they think of privacy rights in a time of crisis. After all, drinking a glass of water is harmless (actually, beneficial), but I doubt many would argue that being forced to drink a glass of water would violate your autonomy; similarly, I don’t see why the type of data being collected should necessarily overshadow an individuals right not to provide it.
In general this leaves me with a bunch of questions. Which rights do we as a society consider important enough not to tamper with? And if privacy is not one of these, why not? Which actions constitute an invasion of privacy? And are we willing to accept these invasions in the name of handling public crisis?
Great post!
There is quite a dilemma indeed when it comes to large scale tracking for the sole purpose of health monitoring. Personally I believe this measure is actually a leap forward in terms of “public security” given the right terms and conditions (in the sense of a clear and concise data collection model); an unpopular opinion where I do believe this is a direction in the right step. However you state that “They have bypassed any need to receive consent, or inform Canadians of their actions, by claiming that since the data collected is anonymous, the Privacy Act is unrelated,” which is a big red flag. What is considered data that doesn’t fall into the Privacy Act?
It’s currently too early to give a full and concrete answer. More information is needed on the part of PHAC to the specifics in what is being collected here before and I highly agree in your thoughts for a safeguard as well.
This was a good read to think about and shed insight on surveillance in the name of public health. Nice!
I think the feasibility of this type of information collection depends largely on the trust people have in their government or their organizations. I quite agree with your point that the instant information will be collected anonymously and it is still subject to reclassification. It is difficult for individuals to ensure that this information is properly collected and used, but active monitoring and protection of the health of the population is a good outcome for the health system and the health of the population itself. A simple example is that I do not conceal the condition of my teeth from the dentist during the dental examination. Instead, I choose to allow the dentist to conduct a thorough examination. As long as people have enough trust in their government, such information-gathering activities can have more positive effects.
Great and informative post!
I am from a health sciences background and being in a lab we generally want to gather as much data as possible to make accurate conclusions. The more data we have the better the conclusions can be made. However, consent and ethics are always at the forefront of any experiment whether that be a cell study to an anonymous population study. The way PHAC is going about data collection, in my opinion is not looking after the consent of the people even if it is said to be anonymous. I understand that the pandemic is a critical situation for the government but taking data even if anonymous is breaking the trust Canadians have with the government. Steps the government should have taken was to inform people about their intentions, be transparent about their actions, and let people know the benefits and risks of giving consent. As you mentioned in the post, if it is possible to reclassify the data collected anonymously then the privacy of Canadians is lost. Furthermore, if crucial health information of someone is leaked or determined, for example, data about someone living with diabetes is given to the “wrong” hands like insurance companies; then that individual may be paying more for health insurance without ever having consented to giving personal health information. I believe the government should always ask for consent from citizens for any population studies regardless whether it is anonymous.
Great post Theo!
I think you bring up a topic of great concern for us Canadians being tracked unknowingly. As someone who works closely with COVID-19 testing, I can say that while I understand the benefits towards having more data in seeing how people react in accordance with public health measures, that does not justify taking that data right from our pockets without our knowledge or consent.
It would be unreasonable for PHAC to continue collecting our data because, like you have said, the data they collect can possibly be re-identified back to us. However, there’s also the fact that our COVID-19 models have been based on information gathered without this cellphone tracking for the past two years. Additionally, I would be concerned that they would want to use this data in order to prevent chronic disease and monitor mental health. If this were to be done without prior consent, it may negatively impact patient care as people are more willing to go along with a care plan if they have a say in it.
In my opinion, what the PHAC is doing is unnecessary and can lead to unwanted outcomes for the public such as selling people’s data to companies that want to take advantage of what you want and where you will often be.
Great Post!
I think this is based on if we trust our government. As an international student, when I came back to Calgary in August 2021, the government required me to use the ArriveCAN app to record my quarantine. At that time, there were so many articles on the Internet talking about how this app tracks people’s current location. But, I am never worried about it because I trust the government, and I know it is important for the government to know each foreigner’s location when he(she) is in a quarantine period.
Interesting post! I can definitely see how this kind of thinking could lead us towards more and more privacy vulnerabilities as more and more we are tracked “anonymously” by governments and likely eventually corporations, so it is good to see that questions about the privacy involved are being raised. I can understand how such information could be largely useful in monitoring the pathways disease take through a community or city, so I think as long as strict measures are kept in place by multiple individual organizations to ensure that privacy standards are held, the government could make things more consensual by having a kind of “opt-in” program for individuals willing to share this data.
Hey, great post. I think phones have become a domestic surveillance tool. We can all thank the NSA for weaponizing a device that gives them access to everyone anywhere and at all times. Ever since Covid, the privacy of phones has been a top issue as to how much information should be provided while maintaining the privacy of the individual. I know many people complained about the Covid tracking app. Although I agree with the premise of the app, there are still problems with it that should have been addressed before its publication. Nonetheless, phones should not be used as a surveillance apparatus to spy on people and much should be done to prevent their usage for nefarious purposes.
I like the title alot! It is quite funny how concerned people were with microchips in vaccines when cellphones were giving off so much personal information anyways haha. It does raise an interesting issue of privacy and safety as it seems that new technology always brings.
Very interesting post. I think it depends on whether people will trust the government completely. And I think it’s very important in this very time of the epidemic. For example, the government can immediately know the location of the person infected with the Novel Coronavirus and seal off and disinfect the area. This can greatly limit the spread of the virus.
Great Post! It isn’t surprising, therefore, that smartphone manufacturers are expected to be hit hard when some components are short. And while the current concern is with computer chips, shortages are expected to spread to other components too.
This was a fantastic read, it’s always the conspiracy theorists that come up with the most wack things about vaccines or government mandates in general. They can track you already through cellphones, with the ability to be tracked easily it boils down to how well you wish to be secure and how trusting you are of your governments/organizations.