Ten Questions College Students Should Ask About Their Schools’ COVID-19 Apps
As colleges and universities around the country attempt to resume some semblance of in-person education this fall, many schools are requiring their students to download COVID-19 apps as a condition of returning to campus. These apps vary in what they do, but we are highly skeptical of, or outright opposed, to many of them. It is unlikely that any of these apps will make a significant difference in stemming the spread of the coronavirus on campuses, and it appears that many such apps invade students’ privacy. Many of them, as professor of sociology and technology Zeynep Tufekci , are merely “performative” on the part of college administrators — an effort to make a show that they are doing something — and will likely prove to be actively counterproductive.
In public institutions, these app installation requirements represent a government demand that citizens install a particular piece of software on their personal phones. It is true that the current outbreak constitutes an extraordinary situation, but we don’t want this to open the door to a future where people become prisoners of their phones, as various government agencies use compulsory app installation rules to turn them into enforcement devices for all kinds of legal and administrative rules.
It is difficult for us at the ACLU to track what is happening at thousands of schools across the United States, but we encourage returning students and staff being asked to download apps onto their personal devices to ask some sharp questions of school administrators.
1. What does it try to do? Does it administer daily health surveys, remind you to get tested, or provide daily exposure notifications? Does it connect to testing or treatment regimes? Will it help you get in touch with campus health services, or inform you where you can get tested? Does it record your movements or the people that you are near? (We are skeptical and have raised many questions about both location tracking and proximity tracking as anti-coronavirus measures and oppose the former in all circumstances.)
2. Is it used as an enforcement device? Any apps that are used to try to ensure compliance with quarantines or social-distancing rules dramatically raise the stakes around their accuracy and dependability.
3. What data does it collect? Does it require students to identify themselves, or can it be run anonymously? Does it collect health information? If so, does that data align with current public health advice? Does it collect location data or associational data (who you spend time with)? How frequently does it collect any such information — i.e., how fine-grained is it?
4. Is that data stored centrally, or only on your device? Data that is stored on someone else’s computers raises many more privacy issues than data stored locally on your phone.
5. Who has access to the data collected by the app? A company? School administrators? Campus or town police? Others? If it is used as an enforcement measure, who is notified of suspected social-distancing violations — administrators, academic deans, campus police, others?
6. Is it voluntary? Are you given a choice about whether to use it? Are there places on campus you can’t go without the app?
7. What other policies govern its use? Have administrators communicated with you about its security or privacy protections? Are those protections strong?
8. How much control do you have over it? If it’s not voluntary, can you turn location tracking off, pause it, etc., or is it the functional equivalent of an ankle bracelet?
9. What servers does it talk to? Some apps are built with third-party software development kits (SDKs) that are unnecessarily intrusive, show advertisements, or consume your battery or data plan.
10. Is the source code for the app available? Have students or faculty at your university had the opportunity to review that code to verify that the app operates as advertised? If not, why not?
Some COVID-19 apps — for example, symptom checklists for student that properly protect privacy — may be harmless or even helpful. But many others will create bad precedents while doing little to stem the spread of COVID. Asking detailed questions of school administrators can help ensure that the current pandemic doesn’t lead to a long-term erosion in the rights of students, and of us all.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.