Response to: “Immunity Certificates: If We Must Have Them, We Must Do It Right”
Contextualizing ethical considerations of COVID credentials within human experiences.
Yesterday the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics out of Harvard published the pictured white paper, written by Dakota Gruener (Executive Director, ID-2020).
While technical descriptions of verifiable credentials and decentralized models are certainly well stated, the most timely section in my opinion is Ch. 4: “Implementing for Equity and the Protection of Civil Liberties.”
As decentralized technology builders we talk a lot about the application of verifiable credentials to meet the privacy and security needs of prospective COVID immunity certificates. And, we have to work with the broader community to understand and plan for the risks associated with issuance and use of such certificates.
Gruener identifies several major considerations, including:
- Risk of Exclusion: “Those able to prove their identity, or in this case their testing status, are uniquely advantaged relative to those lacking verifiable proof.”
- Risks Posed by Privileging Immunity: “Even with careful legislation and convenient testing, some uninfected individuals, desperate to return to their daily lives, may deliberately risk infection, betting that they’ll recover and be eligible for the “golden ticket” certifying their immunity”
- Liability: “The issue of legal liability for testers and for the developers and deployers of the proposed digital certificate system can be addressed through legislation that indemnifies these parties from liability”
- Necessary Scale: “Not only must we reach an appropriate level of adoption — as established by epidemiologists — but we must also see high enough levels of adoption across the population” … “Even if every measure is taken to embed privacy into the design of the system, we must recognize that distrust may limit adoption.”
I want to add some human context to enrich this discussion and help practitioners empathize with the trade-offs described above, particularly related to risks of exclusion and privileging immunity. I think the best way for me to do this is to speak concretely from my experiences and the local communities I am a part of.
Since the beginning of March I’ve been shopping for and delivering food and baby supplies to three families in Austin, TX. Each was recently granted political asylum for targeted violence perpetuated against them in their home countries. After dangerous travel, turning themselves in at the US-Mexico border, and months in detention facilities, they won their cases and are now in the process of setting up a new chapter of their lives. This has included waiting for and eventually receiving several critical government credentials, including an I-94 (like a green card) and — perhaps more importantly — a work permit (arguably the ultimate “golden ticket” if you are an immigrant).
This is in many ways the best case scenario for asylum seekers arriving to the US today. And, these families are still starting from scratch with limited English, no money, and now with COVID-19 significantly heightened barriers to getting that first job. As one of the husbands — I’ll call him Paulo — said to me across the parking lot this weekend, “We pray this will pass, and I just want to work for my family.”
For Paulo and his family the risk of exclusion is real. They don’t have internet access, have limited transportation, and currently have paper-based government IDs that are not a drivers license, passport, or permanent resident card. When these types of immunity credentials become available they may not receive notification, have a ride to a test center, or be able to verify their identity in the standard way. It is important that we think about and design for these considerations.
The risk of privileging immunity is also pressing. Paulo and his wife need to be able to work to support their family. Their rent was covered this month by a non-profit, but those funds are running out quickly based on high demand. Should they be able to access it, acquiring an immunity credential may mean keeping their home and purchasing needed medication. Getting sick may be weighed against possible homelessness. It is important not to equate this desperate calculation with malice or systems manipulation. Economic hardship is a losing game for everyone. Technical solutions must be paired with human communication and solidarity efforts to bolster a social safety net to support lower SES families who are doing their part by staying home.
These are not edge cases in a model. They are people going through some of the hardest experiences of their lives… and they stand to be impacted greatly by whatever approach is taken with COVID immunity credentials.
Thank you to Dakota Gruener for your writing, and also to our identity colleague Kaliya Young for your inputs in the paper. Let’s continue the discussion and keep humans at the center of this important work.
