libertés, data

Health crisis, state of emergency: what safeguards are there for our fundamental freedoms?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

This article originally appeared (in French) in newsletter no. 17 of the VP-IP Chair, Data, Identity, Trust in the Digital Age for April 2020.

[divider style=”dotted” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

The current pandemic and unprecedented measures taken to slow its spread provide an opportunity to measure and assess the impact of digital technology on our societies, including in terms of its legal and ethical contradictions.

While the potential it provides, even amid a major crisis, is indisputable, the risks of infringements on our fundamental freedoms are even more evident.

Without giving in to a simplistic but unrealistic ad hoc techno-solutionism, it would seem appropriate to observe the current situation by looking back forty years into the past, at a time when there was no internet or digital technology at our sides to soften the shock and provide a rapid global response.

The key role of digital technology during the health crisis

Whether to continue economic activity with remote work and remote conferences or to stay in touch with family and friends, digital technology, in its diverse uses, has proved to be invaluable in these exceptional times.

Without such technology, the situation would clearly have been much worse, and the way of life imposed upon us by the lockdown even harder to bear. It also would have been much more difficult to ensure outpatient care and impossible to provide continued learning at home for primary, secondary and higher education students.

The networks and opportunities for remote communication it provides and the knowledge it makes available are crucial assets when it comes to structuring our new reality, in comparison to past decades and centuries.

This health crisis requires an urgent response and therefore serves a brutal reminder of the importance of research in today’s societies, marked by the appearance of novel, unforeseeable events, in a time of unprecedented globalization and movement of people.

Calls for projects launched in France and Europe – whether for research on testing, immunity, treatments for the virus and vaccines that could be developed – also include computer science and humanities components. Examples include aspects related to mapping the progression of the epidemic, factors that can improve how health care is organized and ways to handle extreme situations.

Digital technology has enabled all of the researchers involved in these projects to continue working together, thinking collectively and at a fast pace. And through telemedicine (even in its early stages), it has provided a way to better manage, or at least significantly absorb, the current crisis and its associated developments.

In economic terms, although large swaths of the economy are in tatters and the country’s dependence on imports has made certain situations especially strained – as illustrated by the shortage of protective masks, a topic that has received wide media coverage – other sectors, far from facing a crisis, have seen a rise in demand for their products or services. This has been the case for companies in the telecommunications sector and related fields like e-commerce.

Risks related to personal data

While the crisis has led to a sharp rise in the use of digital technology, the present circumstances also present clear risks as far as personal data is concerned.

Never before has there been such a constant flow of data, since almost all the information involved in remote work is stored on company servers and passed through third party interfaces from employees’ homes. And never before has so much data about our social lives, family and friends been made available to internet and telecommunications companies since – with the exception of those with whom we are spending the lockdown period – more than ever, all of our communication depends on networks.

This underscores the potential offered by the dissemination and handling of the personal data that is now being generated and processed, and consequently, the potential danger, at both the individual and collective level, should it be used in a way that does not respect the basic principles governing data processing.

Yet, adequate safeguards are not yet in place, since the social contract relating to this area is still being developed and debated.

Companies that do not comply with the GDPR have not changed their practices [1] and the massive use of new forms of online connection continue to create risks, given the sensitive nature of the data that may be or is collected.

Examples include debates about the data protection policy for medical consultation interfaces and issuing prescriptions online [2]; emergency measures to enable distance learning via platforms whose data protection policies have been criticized or are downright questionable (Collaborate or Discord, which has been called “spyware” by some [3] to name just a few of many examples); the increased use of video conferencing, for which some platforms do not offer sufficient safeguards in terms of personal data protection, or which have received harsh criticism following an examination of their capacity for cybersecurity and for protecting the privacy of the information exchanged.

For Zoom, notably, which is very popular at the moment, it has reportedly been “revealed that the company shared information about some of its users with Facebook and could discreetly find users’ LinkedIn profiles without their knowledge” [4].

There are also more overall risks, relating to how geolocation could be used, for example. The CNIL (the French Data Protection Authority) [5], the European Data Protection Committee [6] and the European Data Protection Supervisor [7] have given precise opinions on this matter and their advice is being sought at the moment.

In general, mobile tracking applications, such as the StopCovid application being studied by the government [8], and the issue of aggregation of personal data require special attention. This topic has been widely covered by the French [9], European [10] and international [11] media. The CNIL has called for vigilance in this area and has published recommendations [12].

The present circumstances are exceptional and call for exceptional measures – but these measures must only infringe on our freedom of movement, right to privacy and personal data protection rights with due respect for our fundamental principles: necessity of the measure, proportionality, transparency, and loyalty, to name just a few.

The least intrusive solutions possible must be used. In this respect, Ms Marie-Laure Denis, President of the CNIL, explains, “Proportionality may also be assessed with regard to the temporary nature, related solely to the management of the crisis, of any measure considered” [13].

The exceptional measures must not last beyond these exceptional circumstances. They must not be left in place for the long term and chip away at our fundamental rights and freedoms. We must be particularly vigilant in this area, as the precedent for measures adopted for a transitional period in order to respond to exceptional circumstances (the Patriot Act in the United States, the state of emergency in France) has unfortunately shown that these measures have been continued – with doubts as to their necessity – and some have been established in ordinary law provisions and have therefore become part of our daily lives [14].

[divider style=”dotted” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Claire Levallois-Barth, Lecturer in Law at Télécom Paris, Coordinator of the VP-IP Chair (Personal Information Values and Policies)

Maryline Laurent, Computer Science Professor at Télécom SudParis and Co-Founder of the VP-IP Chair

Ivan Meseguer, European Affairs, Institut Mines-Télécom, Co-Founder of the VP-IP Chair

Patrick Waelbroeck, Professor of Industrial Economics and Econometrics at Télécom Paris, Co-Founder of the VP-IP Chair

Valérie Charolles, Philosophy Researcher at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School, member of the VP-IP Chair, Associate Researcher at the Interdisciplinary Institute of Contemporary Anthropology (EHESS/CNRS)

 

phishing

Something phishy is going on!

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Cyberattacks have been on the rise since the month of March 2020. Hervé Debar, an information systems security researcher at Télécom SudParis, talked to us about the relationship between cyberattacks – such as phishing and zoom-bombing  – and the Covid-19 health crisis.

 

For some, the crisis brought about by Covid-19 has created opportunities: welcome to the world of cyberattacks. The month of March saw a significant rise in online attacks, in part due to increased reliance on e-commerce and digital working practices, such as video conferences. “Such attacks include zoom-bombing,”  says Hervé Debar, an information systems security researcher at Télécom SudParis.

Zoom-Bombing

Zoom is a video conference platform that has become widely used for communication and to facilitate remote work. “It’s a system that works really well,” says the researcher, “although it’s controversial since it’s hosted in the United States and raises questions about compliance, in particular with the GDPR.”

Zoom-bombing is a way of attacking users of such platforms by hijacking meetings. “There are real problems with the use of collaborative software because you have to install a client, so you run the risk of leaving the door to your computer open,” explains Hervé Debar.

Zoom-bombers seek to make a disturbance, but may also potentially try to spy on users, even if “a lot of power is needed for a malicious third party to hijack a desired meeting.”  These virtual meetings are defined by IDs – sets of characters of varying lengths. In order to try to hijack a meeting, a hacker generates IDs at random in the hope of finding an active meeting.

“This means that there is little likelihood of finding a specific meeting in order to spy on users,” says Hervé Debar. “That being said, arriving uninvited in an active meeting at random to make trouble is easier in our current circumstances, since there are a much greater number of meetings.”  An algorithm could be used to generate these valid tags. This works like a robot calling set numbers: it calls numbers on a continual basis and if someone picks up on the other end, it hands the call over to an operator.

It is worth noting that Zoom has taken certain cybersecurity aspects into account for its services and is making efforts to provide appropriate solutions. To lower the risk, meetings can also be protected by using an access code. Besides zoom-bombing, more traditional attacks are well-suited to the current health crisis. One such attack is phishing.

For what purpose?

The goal of phishing is to find a convincing bait to get the recipient of an email to click on a link and want to take further action. “Phishing techniques have gone from selling Viagra a few years ago to selling masks or other medical products,” says Hervé Debar. “This reflects people’s needs. The more worried they are, the more vulnerable they are to this kind of attack.” The fear of getting sick, coupled with a shortage of available protective equipment, can therefore increase the risk of these types of practices.

You get an e-mail saying: “We have masks in stock! Buy X masks for X euros.” So you pay for your order but never receive it.“It’s fraud, plain and simple,” says Hervé Debar. But such practices may also take a more indirect form, by asking for your credit card number or other sensitive personal information. This information may be used directly or sold to a third party. Messages, links and videos can also contain links to download malware that is then installed on the user’s computer, or a malicious application for smartphones.

Recently, this type of email has started using a new approach. Hervé Debar says that “the message is worded as a response, as if the person receiving it had placed an order with their supplier.”  The goal is to build trust by making people think they know the sender, therefore making them more likely to fall for the scam.

From an economic viewpoint, unfortunately, such practices are profitable. “Even if very few people actually become victims, the operational cost is very low,” explains the researcher. “It works the same way as telephone scams and premium-rate numbers.”

Uncertainty about information sources tends to amplify this phenomenon. In these anxious times, this can be seen in the controversy over chloroquine. “The doubts surrounding this information make it conducive to phishing campaigns, especially since it has been difficult to get people to understand that it may be dangerous.”

How can we protect ourselves?

“Vigilance and common sense are needed to react appropriately and protect ourselves from phishing attacks,” says Hervé Debar, adding that “knowing suppliers well and having a good overview of inventory would be the best defense.”  For hospitals and healthcare facilities, the institutional system ensures that they are familiar with their suppliers and know where to place orders safely.

“We also have to keep in mind that these products must meet a certain quality level,” adds Hervé Debar. “It would be surprising if people could just magically produce them. We know that there is a major shortage of such supplies, and if governments are struggling to obtain them, it shouldn’t be any easier for individuals.”

Information technology assists with logistical aspects in healthcare institutions – for example inventory and transporting patients – and it’s important for these institutions to be able to maintain communication. So they may be targeted by attacks, in particular attacks on services that seek to saturate networks. “There have been attacks on services at Paris hospitals, which have been effectively blocked. It seems like a good idea to limit exterior connections and bandwidth usage.”

Tiphaine Claveau for I’MTech

Wikipedia

Wikipedia in the time of the Covid-19 crisis

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Wikipedia provides freely reusable, objective and verifiable content that every citizen may modify and improve. It is difficult to achieve this aim when it comes to providing real-time information about a crisis marked by uncertainty, as is the case with the current Covid-19 epidemic. At Télécom Paris, Caroline Rizza, a researcher in information sciences, and Sandrine Bubendorff, a sociologist, have explored how crises are approached on Wikipedia – a topic they have been studying for three years through the ANR MACIV project. In this joint interview, they explain the motivations for producing content about the health crisis by comparing it to more short-term crises, such as the attacks of 13 November 2015 in Paris.

 

Why study Wikipedia in crisis situations?

Sandrine Bubendorff: In our research, we examine how information spreads in crisis situations. And Wikipedia is a place where articles are created very quickly when an event occurs, with a goal: summarize the information available. So we look at how this summary is constructed. This allows us to analyze the way in which information is spread and aggregated about an event as it unfolds. For instance, how do the contributors deliberate in real time about what constitutes a reliable source? The idea is to understand how the Wikipedia page can help make sense of the events.

On Wikipedia, is the current health crisis approached like any other crisis?

Caroline Rizza: Our research on Wikipedia began by studying what are referred to as civil security crises. We focused in particular on the attacks of 13 November 2015. We studied the dynamics of creating pages, debates between contributors about what makes a source reliable or unreliable, strategies for building tree structures to best present the information etc. A defining characteristic of civil security crises is that they take place over a short period of time. Whether it’s a matter of an attack, flooding or an industrial accident, the crisis is usually short-lived: whether it’s “anticipated” or unexpected, we observe that the crisis intensifies and peaks rapidly with a “return to normalcy” in the hours or days follow. The time frame for our current health crisis is different. The crisis intensifies, then levels off and plateaus without any real way of predicting when things will return to normal. As a result of this plateauing, a variety of mechanisms come into play on Wikipedia, some of which are unique to crisis situations, and others that are more similar to questions raised for more common topics.

Read more on I’MTech: Social media and crisis situations: learning how to control the situation

What are the typical mechanisms for producing knowledge about crises on Wikipedia?  

SB: The first characteristic is that a page is created for the event very quickly with a basic summary of information. For the attacks of 13 November for example, the first entry on the page was “Shooting in the 11th arrondissement, live coverage on BFM TV”. Less than five minutes later, it was corrected by another person to change the term “shooting” and remove the reference to BFM TV. In situations like this, we observe that information is constructed very quickly and in an iterative way. This can also be seen in the pages about the Covid-19 epidemic.

There is also a flurry of activity to create secondary pages on Wikipedia: the ones that allow members of the community to interact with one another. The initial discussions are usually about whether or not it is appropriate to create a page dedicated to the topic: are the events significant enough to appear in an encyclopedia? Such debates impact the architecture of pages about events: does a given sub-event deserve to have a dedicated page? For example, in the case of the Covid-19 crisis, we’re seeing debates about whether each country should have its own dedicated page for the situation, or if all the information should instead be centralized on a single page. These debates are interesting since they give us the opportunity to understand how events are organized hierarchically. And as always on Wikipedia, this desire to produce encyclopedic, lasting knowledge.

Why are there debates about whether or not to create pages about certain topics?

CR: What’s unique about crisis topics on Wikipedia is that there is an influx of new contributors to provide information about the topic, probably due to the unfolding nature of the crisis. This means that the community of editors will not be composed solely of regular editors, and that there will be opposing viewpoints. New contributors are likely to produce content very quickly and provide information about a topic using a journalistic approach. The more regular contributors we interviewed reported that they have a specific approach for this type of article, which is to not intervene immediately. They wait a day or a few days, until the contributions level off so that they can thoroughly revise the article in terms of both content and form. So they use more of an encyclopedic approach. They think about presenting the event from a knowledge perspective: the information must stand the test of time. 

What are the different ways in which Wikipedia contributors approach topics?

SB: For the regular contributors we’ve met, the urgent need is not to report information, but rather to provide a synthesis of information. In general, Wikipedia only deals with secondary sources. The information must exist elsewhere in order to be cited on Wikipedia, and there must be a consensus about its sources. The content presented must therefore be verified and credible, which calls for a different time frame than putting information from “primary sources” online. For pages dedicated to crisis situations, regular contributors generally only intervene after content produced at the same time the crisis is unfolding has leveled off. They edit the information, eliminating side notes and keeping only a summary of important information, by restructuring pages, improving sources etc.

As an example of this issue, there was a debate about the best source to use to provide figures concerning the numbers of Covid-19 cases and deaths. Such a discussion exemplifies the contrast between approaches that can be described as encyclopedic or journalistic. Each country updates and reports its data on a daily basis. However, the WHO updates its figures with a 24 to 48 hour delay since it needs time to aggregate the data. So on Wikipedia, there is a debate about which data to take into account. Ultimately, so far the consensus has weighed in favor of the WHO figures, even if they come with a delay. This was the consensus reached between the contributors.

At the top of the French Wikipedia page about the Covid-19 epidemic, two banners are displayed to warn readers about the possible lack of information. The first is specific to the current health crisis, while the second is displayed on all pages concerning current events.

 

Are there unique aspects as to how the health crisis is being approached on Wikipedia ?

SB: There are two differences between the Covid-19 crisis and civil security crises such as: its time frame and its scientific dimension. Because it is taking place over a long period of time, the debates also continue over time. Although the crisis began several months ago, the pages still display specific banners warning readers that the information may be inaccurate or obsolete, and that it relates to current events. These banners are very interesting because they attest to the construction of encyclopedic knowledge in real time. Behind-the-scenes debates are playing out between contributors to determine which scientific sources to take into account: should only published scientific articles be discussed? Should articles that are currently being peer-reviewed be incorporated? All these questions illustrate how the community produces information that will stand the test of time and. And ultimately they are similar to the debates we observe between Wikipedia contributors for “non-crisis” articles. Scientific articles, publications, are sources that Wikipedians are accustomed to using and discussing.

Why do so many people readily volunteer to provide such encyclopedic information?

CR: One of the ideas that has emerged in our research on crises is that citizens contribute in order to make sense of what is happening, and to fill an information vacuum. To be more specific, like other researchers, we have noted that any crisis comes with its share of uncertainty. This uncertainty results in anxiety among citizens. Faced with such uncertainty and the anxiety it causes, citizens attempt to “solve” these questions. They try to understand what’s happening and what should be done, and even what they should or could do. They come together, communicate using their smartphones and organize groups on social media. This is exactly what we have demonstrated with Wikipedia: in the absence of effective communication about the crisis, citizens are plunged into uncertainty, which they try to resolve by coproducing encyclopedic informational content. Working as a community — debating information sources and quality — therefore allows them to find some small degree of certainty amidst an overwhelming amount of sometimes contradictory information that is being spread, and ultimately, to fill an information vacuum that leaves the door open to rumors or misinformation. We’re seeing this today and there’s a good reason why the Covid-19 pandemic has been coupled with the idea of an “infodemic.” 

Is Wikipedia the only platform that makes this possible?

CR: No, we talk about Wikipedia but this is also something we’ve seen in our research on Twitter. Ultimately, what we’ve demonstrated about this topic through the ANR MACIV project we’re working on is that despite the main purposes of each of these media — to construct encyclopedic knowledge on Wikipedia and to disseminate information on Twitter — citizens are very attentive to the truthfulness of information. They develop intrinsic verification mechanisms: in the comments on posts in Twitter feeds for example, and on the talk page of a Wikipedia article. As such, we have suggested that Wikipedia represents a “digital social network” during a crisis, in the same way as Twitter or Facebook, in light of the extensive activity on the talk page about the crisis.

Interview by Benjamin Vignard, for I’MTech.

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

MACIV: social media in crisis situations

Caroline Rizza and Sandrine Bubendorff are researchers at the Interdisciplinary Institute of Innovation, a joint research unit (UMR 9217) between Télécom Paris/CNRS/École Polytechnique/Mines ParisTech. They are working on the MACIV project (MAnagement of CItizens and Volunteers: social media in crisis situation), for which Caroline Rizza is the scientific coordinator. The project is funded by the ANR via the French General Secretariat for Defense and National Security. Since 2018, the MACIV project has been examining how information is created and spread on social media in crisis situations. An exploratory study carried out prior to this project and funded by the Defense and Security Zone of the Paris Prefecture of Police as part of the Euridice consortium led by the Laboratory of Technology, Territories and Societies (LATTS), made it possible to initiate this research. MACIV project partners include I3-Télécom Paris, IMT Mines Albi, LATTS, the French Directorate General for Civil Security and Crisis Management, VISOV, NDC, and the Defense and Security Zone of the Paris Prefecture of Police.

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Video conferences and socializing: bringing some joy back to our daily lives

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Stéphane Safin, Télécom Paris – Institut Mines-Télécom

The lockdown has upended the ways we communicate and maintain social connections. It has forced us to rethink our social habits and to create new ones. The use of video conference systems has become widespread. But is this technology designed to facilitate work as effective when it comes to socializing on a personal level? How can we reinvent our forms of interaction so that they may continue to be meaningful and fulfilling?

Socializing online

Remote communication is largely supported by information and communication technologies, for both professional and personal purposes. Technological solutions have proliferated, giving rise to new ways of communicating, and even to new forms of language. For example, the limitations of text messaging have made it necessary to develop shortened forms of writing, which has led not only to the development of a specific abbreviated form of spelling, but also to new digital social media platforms that have enshrined this practice, such as Twitter. Another example is the lack of metacommunication in writing – meaning communication about communication itself, which conveys nuance and helps us understand one another – which has led to increasingly sophisticated systems, such as emoticons and animated GIFs.

As remote communication tools are largely available and increasingly affordable, they provide an opportunity to maintain social ties, and even strengthen them, at a time when we are all forced to be physically isolated from each other.

There are two main forms of remote communication: asynchronous communication – with tools based on written and visual components such as email, sharing documents and digital social media – and synchronous communication, including for example tools such as telephones, video conferencing and the specific case of instant messaging, which offers a hybrid category between synchronous and asynchronous communication.

Do video conferences allow for informal socializing?

Video conferencing tools were developed to hold work meetings. In certain cases, they even help improve the quality of collaboration, in comparison to situations of co-presence (physical presence in the same place) since they force interactions to be structured. Being in front of a screen for a set period of time can boost concentration and efficiency, and employees are pushed to “get to the point” by dispensing with the informal aspects. Too bad if some socializing time is lost before and after the meeting, or over coffee to finish the discussion. Yet, when it comes to “everyday” socializing, it is the informal aspects that matter the most. Taking a coffee break together is much more important than the task being carried out.

But compared to situations of co-presence, these tools have a number of limitations, the main two being the lack of a shared context (who knows what’s happening outside the frame of the other person’s webcam?) and the fact that considerable resources must be allocated to manage interactions (dividing up speaking time, managing the tools and their technical constraints). In general, they only work well for groups that have already been formed, who have a shared a frame of reference: shared goals, a relatively unequivocal vocabulary etc.

But most importantly, although even meetings for professional situations – which are usually highly standardized in terms of power relations and how speaking time is structured – must still be “run well” in order to be effective, what about our informal meetings, which are considerably more chaotic (which is also part of their charm) ?

Everyday socializing takes creativity

In short, video conferencing allow us to carry out tasks in structured groups, but requires clear, formal management of the context and interactions. But it is far from ideal for everyday socializing, which relies on the group’s immersion in a shared environment, the flow of conversation (especially necessary for humor), and on enjoying being together without carrying out a task, but simply to be together.  

In an effort to overcome the inherent shortcomings of the technology, and because we don’t really have other options, forms of resilience have been developed in order to (re)invent original formats for social interaction. These strategies fall into three broad strategies, which we will illustrate below with examples from the lockdown period found here and here.

Strategy one: creating a shared context

Time actually spent together is combined with a supposedly spared space. Virtual cocktail parties are a perfect example: settling into a comfortable chair, toasting to one another through the webcam and sharing hors d’œuvres are all ways to recreate habits to immerse ourselves in a sort of shared frame of reference – everyone knows what to do at a cocktail party. Another example: some remote meeting systems make it possible to cut out the user’s face and set it against a background. Originally designed to protect privacy, this feature also provides an opportunity to recreate a shared context. Using the same background can help make everyone feel like they are in “the same place.”

Strategy two: recreating tasks

Video conferencing is especially suited to carrying out tasks, so why not set a goal for the time spent socializing, when there wasn’t necessarily one before? Virtual babysitting, for example. For those with children, a bit of help is always appreciated and enlisting grandparents or other adults to read a story or help with homework is beneficial all around: it gives parents a break and helps maintain the connection between children and grandparents. The connection is now established through the task, which provides a purpose and goal for this connection. 

Other examples include playing board games virtually or cooking together, activities which are also ways to recreate a task, set a goal and take advantage of what these tools are made for. Exercising in lockdown, and therefore with limited resources, helps people get up and moving, but more importantly, it gives them a reason to get together.

Strategy three: changing the very format of communication

This involves combining video conferencing with other media (images, videos, music) to enhance the message and focus on content. It may also involve transforming communication, both in its form and content, to overcome the shortcomings of the technology: while we may no longer be able to make long-winded statements because of network quality, we can interact through short sentences and snappy humor, and as such, make room for light-hearted moments, where we don’t dwell on the virus or our feelings about the current situation. Another example is using features many tools offer to “disguise” ourselves virtually, fostering forms of metacommunication that are especially useful when we share a limited context and our non-verbal behavior is barely visible.   

Lessons to learn

Of course, we are not all equal when it comes to our lockdown experience, especially when it comes to access to digital tools. And these tools do not always ensure privacy, far from it in fact. But in these times, they are an invaluable resource for maintaining our social life, as long as we are able to invent ways to use them.  

And maybe on the other side of this crisis, we will have learned to appreciate the importance of informal socializing and therefore value relationships in our professional interactions, challenging the dominant paradigm of hyper-performance.

Stéphane Safin, Ergonomics research professor, Télécom Paris – Institut Mines-Télécom

This article has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article (in French).

solidarity

From solidarism to national solidarity: lessons of the epidemic

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In this time of crisis, solidarity has been widely called for in response to the risk posed by the epidemic. In this article, Sophie Bretesché explores the historic origins of solidarity as a societal value. A sociologist at IMT Atlantique, she specializes in issues of risk and memory in relation to organizational change. In light of past epidemics and their impacts on social organization, she provides insight into the relationship between solidarity and the challenges we face in terms of social organization.

 

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he health crisis caused by COVID 19 has led our society to consider collective risk in a new light. Since the outbreak of the virus and its global spread, our vulnerability to the virus has underscored the fragility of our bodies, and even more so, the organic nature of our societies, made up of individuals who interact with one another. This epidemic, viewed as unprecedented since the Spanish flu of 1918, raises serious questions about the economic development models we have constructed since the Second World War, based on interdependence between major economies.  The epidemic has therefore pushed people to rethink their vision of the society in which they live. It reveals that the society we live in is not simply an artificial construction. It is a whole, which we inhabit, are part of, and which has proven to be riddled with fluids, bacteria, interactions and tensions.

Three components of risk management have come under question: scientific knowledge, the vulnerability level of our society, and our capacity to develop forms or resilience. The crisis has therefore led us to rethink the way society regulates its interdependencies. In response to the spread of the contagion, the notions of liberty and equality played a decisive role at the beginning of the crisis. The expected counterpart of the lockdown – a de facto deprivation of liberty – was equal access to care for all citizens. In this perspective, it is the vulnerability to the risk that is managed collectively.

In recent days, another notion has been widely called for in the health, economic and social spheres: national solidarity. It has been the common watchword in the management of the crisis. This notion has been used in the past , in particular in relation to Pasteur’s groundbreaking discoveries that revolutionized medicine. Solidarism was inspired by the great microbial discoveries, and the medical discoveries resulting from the fight against epidemics had a concrete effect on the way societies were managed. In light of the COVID 19 epidemic, it is significant that the notion of solidarity has been used as the structuring principle for the regulation methods to come.

Solidarist theory at the crossroads of medical discoveries and the economic crisis

In the 1890s, solidarist theory was just starting to gain attention, but it had already been used in biology for half a century. Moral principles and scientific methods must align to go beyond simple charity and create “solidarity” (he did not invent the term but gave its noble meaning) organized collectively. Indeed, it grew out of an intellectual fervor for the notion of solidarity, a consequence of the major economic crisis that hit France from 1873 to 1895. At the end of the 19th century, liberalism, based on the glorification of the market and suspicion of any State regulation, was increasingly considered unacceptable, as it increased social inequality and intensified the much-discussed “social question.” Paternalism, along with managing behavior through religion and philanthropy, were no longer considered credible responses to the ills of industrialization and the development of global capitalism. It was against this backdrop that Léon Bourgeois put forward a new social doctrine in the 1890s, in which the principle of solidarity was a cornerstone.

Pasteur’s discoveries would lead to mass vaccination and raise important social questions.

Léon Bourgeois readily acknowledged that Pasteur’s scientific research on microbial contagion was at the origin of his thinking about the interdependence between men and generations. As he saw it, rich and poor were equally exposed to biological and social ills, and the suffering endured by some would inevitably affect the lives of others. “The isolated individual does not exist,” Bourgeois tirelessly repeated, in response to the liberal dogma of the precedence of the individual over social organization – which liberals saw as a coercive power, and considered that any steps in this direction would result in the erosion of individual liberties. Bourgeois and the solidarists, on the other hand, asserted that the individual is born into society and may only thrive through the intellectual and material resources made available by society. Interdependent and united, men are indebted to one another, as well as to the generations that came before them and those to follow.

From biological solidarity to social solidarity

Bourgeois’s vision was based on scientific knowledge about the facts of social organization. Based on natural sciences and emerging sociology, his vision showed the close solidarity that unites the components of an organization, whether social or biological. This vision, supported by the findings of natural sciences, illustrated how the liberal idea of laissez  faire was counterproductive, due precisely to the interdependence of individuals. The solidarity proven in the field of science led to the implementation of a new social contract for debt that would account for the interdependence and reciprocal duty linking the different members of a society.

Social Security would grow out of this insightful intuition – social ill was ultimately turned into public good. Thus, solidarism grew out of the idea of a “social debt” which would gradually come to encompass the right to education, a foundation of basic goods to survive and insurance against the main risks of life for everyone. A “social duty” was assigned to everyone. The solidarity proposed by Bourgeois established, along with liberty, the effective solidarity of the country in response to the perils of life.

From debt to social redistribution

This philosophy upholding the fundamentally social nature of all individual existence  goes hand in hand with a process that Jacques Donzelot called “the invention of the social”. For Bourgeois, there was no purely individual property: all activity and property, had, in part, a social origin and as such, the taxes and social security contributions collected by public authorities on income and assets were the rightful compensation for the services offered by society.

This conception provided the basis for the reforms championed by Bourgeois, which would result in the introduction of progressive rates for estate tax in 1901 as well as the creation of a progressive income tax in 1914. The debate over estate taxation, begun in 1893-1894, represented a key moment in the development of solidarism. In the Revue de métaphysique et de morale (Review of Metaphysics and Morality) the philosopher Alphonse Darlu set out the principle of solidarity between generations, which would provide the basis for the legitimacy of estate tax for over a century.

Covid 19: when the epidemic reveals the role of professional communities    

A look back at the epidemics of the 19th century therefore reminds us how such phenomena have drastically changed conceptions of social relationships and political action. And the current COVID 19 crisis has revealed a number of dimensions that are intrinsic to society.

The first relates to the organization of certain professional communities, which have for years been built upon continuous adaption to complex, difficult situations  with regard to the resources at their disposal. This notion of a “professional community” has now taken on particular significance, even if in recent years it has been damaged by technocratic, bureaucratic and managerial reforms. The management of the crisis has illustrated, for example, how the medical community has shown unwavering commitment to its general interest mission, as well as remarkable effectiveness as a community.  Accounts from nurses, nursing assistants and physicians illustrate what has risen to the surface in the face of adversity: caring for others, self-sacrifice, the hard work and dedication of the community and the unavoidable risk-taking that comes with their jobs.

If national solidarity is now expressed, among other ways, by applauding from balconies, we must not be too quick to relate what healthcare workers are doing to a kind of inexhaustible dedication. The medical community is proving its extraordinary capacity to reorganize itself continually, to form strong and effective collectives, while maintaining what forms the very essence of care: the relationship with the patient. And they are performing their duties after years of hospital rationalization, weakening of collectives and of these professions becoming less valued. The solidarity required for the epidemic calls not only for greater appreciation for healthcare professionals, but for their participation in hospital management practices.

The teaching community, another community that has been undervalued in recent years, has also shown its ability to resist and teach during the lockdown. The teaching profession has often been given short shrift when it comes to the essence of education, the relationship, but has now been highlighted precisely in terms of what’s missing: the physical act of knowledge transfer. Once more, despite attempts to develop distance learning,  the power of in-person group learning situations cannot be overemphasized, especially in order to reduce and correct social inequalities.

The epidemic and the key role of unskilled workers

Lastly, during the lockdown, other, more invisible professions have proven to be especially exposed to contagion, even as they perform an activity that is essential to the country. Cashiers, garbage collectors, farm workers, truck drivers and delivery people are examples of essential activities, and yet they are largely unrecognized and undervalued. These are the jobs that are essential and contribute to production, but physically expose workers to the risk of contagion.

The situation reveals the great inequalities between those who can work from home and those who are exposed to the virus. Ultimately, this inequality of circumstances and salary will require a rethinking, in terms of forms of interprofessional solidarity and value chains for tomorrow. And while various forms of social injustice were at the centre of the yellow vests movement, the epidemic has magnified the essential nature of service jobs. In the French culture, based on logic and honor, it is good form to view the service with distance, or even, condescension, even though it reveals the highly social nature of our activities.

Read more on I’MTech: The current “mini-collapse” requires a democratic response

If the medical discoveries of the 19th century brought to light the interdependent nature of the human beings who make up society, the current COVID 19 crisis has provided a reminder to our societies about the fundamentally organic and physical nature of our social and professional activities. Moreover, the active engagement of certain professions reminds us, as in the 19th century, about the social debt we owe to the workers who are most exposed to the virus.

From a distant view to a society based on solidarity

In commentary about the epidemic, many have cited two works of French literature for insight into what we are experiencing. Giono, in Le Hussard sur le toit (The Horseman on the Roof), shows the distant, cold viewpoint of a soldier who does not change his attitude towards cholera. It highlights the selfishness, hate, fear and passivity in relation to the illness. Camus’s La Peste (The Plague), on the other hand, reveals the fraternity and solidarity displayed in particular by health workers.

By choosing to develop a new kind of solidarity, the regulation of risks requires our society to increase its ability to recognize service jobs, and rethink professional value in light of social contribution. For the strength of professional communities and of organizations’ methods of resilience will determine not only our resistance to the epidemic crisis, but also our ability to create a more equal society based on greater solidarity.

To learn more about Sophie Bresteché’s research work:

From the vestiges of the past to the narrative: reclaiming time to remember together

pandémie, collapse

The current “mini-collapse” requires a democratic response

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Fabrice Flipo, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

[dropcap]C[/dropcap]ovid-19, an anthropocene disease? This is how professor Philippe Sansonetti sees the crisis we are experiencing. As a reminder, this concept proposed by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2000 refers to the present geological time interval, in which “conditions and processes on Earth are profoundly affected by human impact”. This period has not yet been officially recognized, as its geological interest is still greatly contested.

The phenomena associated with the Anthropocene period include land erosion, the disruption of major biogeochemical cycles, and the consequences of these environmental changes: global warming, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, the proliferation of non-biodegradable waste etc.

The perspective of the dramatic consequences of these changes has led to the idea of a collapse, and the current pandemic can already be seen as a sort of mini-collapse. What do can these notions teach us about the current situation, especially in terms of the links that must be developed with democracy?

Covid-19 and collapsology

From an ecological viewpoint, Covid-19 is a population among others, that, as others, exists within populations with which it is in constantly evolving interaction, in a non-deterministic manner.

The hypothesis of a complete or partial collapse of what Habermas calls the “sub-systems of rational action in relation to a purpose” (such as transport, agriculture, industry) has been anticipated for a long time, as a result of an epidemic or a number of other causes.

Recently, there has been renewed interest in this type of scenario with the concept of “collapsology”. Before the geographer Jared Diamond wrote his famous Collapse  (2006), he published Guns, Germs and Steel in which he described the global effect of viruses, a major factor in the decimation of the inhabitants of the New World, to a much greater extent than wars.

However, it has not been the emergence of a virus, which is difficult to foresee, that has concerned ecology specialists in general for years, but rather the condition of soil, biodiversity, toxic pollutants,  matter and energy, water and climate change. At the core of all these issues, the risk of collapse threatens us.

Precautionary principle

But what is a collapse? Yves Cochet, Pablo Servigne and Raphael Stevens describe a “process which leads to a situation in which the basic needs of a majority of the population are no longer met,” for example, going to school or seeing friends.

This, in part, is what has arisen in the current situation, which can be considered by those interested in the “Anthropocene period” as a sort of testing ground through which we can learn a number of lessons, and which can be linked to other similar situations of collapse of varying severity, such as the fires in Australia, Mad Cow Disease, Seveso, Bhopal, the collapse of local ecosystems. These “dress rehearsals” can also give rise to legislative or conceptual tools developed to avoid, manage or recover from these situations.

Efforts to prevent such catastrophes led to the precautionary principle adopted at the Rio Summit of 1992: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for postponing effective measures  to prevent environmental degradation.”

Precaution, which has generated a wealth of literature, differs from prudence in that it is applied to major risks, defined by Law no. 87-565 of 22 July 1987: accidents, disasters and catastrophes, justifying emergency plans, including the famous Orsec plan.

Major Risks

The occurrence of a major risk represents a collapse of varying severity.

This type of threat justifies the use of precaution, as it presents very specific properties and differs from usual risks that insurance can anticipate.

The basic point of reference for insurance is the probability of the occurrence of a catastrophe and its cost, which implies being able to rely on a high number of occurrences  – car accidents, for example. The fact that a risk is repeated shows that it is part of the everyday life of society, of its normal activity: for example, an insufficient number of hospital beds.

A major risk is just the opposite: it is incalculable and irreversible, it takes society out of a state of normalcy.

It therefore leads to an exceptional state, in the sense that there is a brutal disruption of normalcy. A nuclear example is a prime example: power plants almost never explode, so we have no real statistical basis for anticipating such an event.

But when they do explode, it is “serious” since the sub-systems of rational action must build their response from scratch.

Resilience

To address ecological issues, thousands of scientists rely on the concept of “resilience.” This word, whose definition is highly disputed, draws on ecological sciences, economics, sociology and psychology, and was popularized by C.S. Holling and Gunderson.

It refers to “the capacity of a socio-ecological system to absorb or withstand disruptions and other stress factors, such that the system remains in the same regime. It describes the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization, learning and adaptation.”

The theorists of the Resilience Alliance, which brings together thousands of scientists, provide guidelines for action using diagrams: “adaptive” management, that identifies uncertainties and seeks to understand, and change the system.

When a major risk materializes, the unknown is part of the equation. Any attempts to “say what’s what” in a hierarchical fashion or by relying on a small number of experts, must be dismissed:  the crucial goal is to foster dialogue, since it is the entire society that is the learning system.

The healthcare system does not by itself represent “the organization”.  In this sort of situation, “any pre-established discourse will be seen as false” for a simple reason: everyone sees the situation as unprecedented.

Any attempt to fall back on a plan (for example, that of the WHO) will reflect dogmatism, and blindness, rather than competence and an ability to learn.

The threatened group must instead manage to develop a shared, evolving understanding, working not with certainties, but with questions (the right questions, the ones people are asking, and that have a real impact); not with results, but with processes (that everyone may take part in, contribute to, and therefore play an active role in their situation).

For example, the question of determining where the virus is. Processes must be put in place in order to answer this question –  testing, expanding the “scientific council” to include the political sciences, or creating a forum that includes shopkeepers, military servicemen, farmers, citizens selected at random etc. – instead of asking a handful of physicians to single-handedly determine the best practice for the entire country.

Management of the crisis in South Korea and Taiwan

South Korea and Taiwan’s responses to COVID-19 are considered “atypical” by the current government. But in reality, these countries have made resilient choices. They understood that they were facing not only a health crisis, but a political one as well, implying a “need to develop the response in close collaboration with civil society.”

Early on, Taiwan equipped its entire population with masks, tests and a high-quality public digital space, allowing everyone to manage the crisis in a democratic, creative and evolving way. This also included non-governmental organizations responsible for dealing with fake news.

After a chaotic beginning, South Korea was quick to implement similar measures, in particular wide-scale testing, which allows individuals to manage their effect on the environment themselves: expertise is decentralized as much as possible. These two countries had no reason to be concerned about the capacity of their healthcare systems, since they were not strained.

South Korean and Taiwan are therefore setting an example, while China is trying to suggest that it is doing so. Europe, meanwhile, has been mocked and criticized. The geopolitics of tomorrow are also at stake.

The force of democracy

The current crisis has taught us a lesson: democracy is the best way to respond to the major crises humanity will face in coming years, due to the reckless yet predictable effects of its activities on the planet.

But dictatorship and authoritarian management will never be far off, set to offer their (bad) services, whether in the form of a leader and savior, at war against a “Chinese virus”, or a Platonic government, claiming to rely on Science.

There is a temptation to create a state of exception, as described by Carl Schmitt: temporarily giving an individual, leader or scientist, full power to save the Republic – an attitude that will instead worsen the crisis.

Let us act with discretion: not deny the crises or shut ourselves off from unsettling news and weak signals, but actively seek out what we do not know, where the absence of a response poses a problem for us, and let us put in place democratic, flexible, evolving structures. Trusting one another, collectively, is the best weapon we have.

[divider style=”dotted” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Fabrice Flipo, Professor of social and political philosophy, epistemology and the history of science and technology, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School

This article has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

réseaux, internet

How to prevent internet congestion during the lockdown

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Hervé Debar, Télécom SudParis – Institut Mines-Télécom ; Gaël Thomas, Télécom SudParis – Institut Mines-Télécom ; Gregory Blanc, Télécom SudParis – Institut Mines-Télécom and Olivier Levillain, Télécom SudParis – Institut Mines-Télécom

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he current health crisis has led to a rise in the use of digital services. Telework, along with school closures and the implementation of distance learning solutions (CNED, MOOCs, online learning platforms such as Moodle for example), will put additional strain on these infrastructures since all of these activities are carried out within the network. This raises concerns about overloads during the lockdown period. Across the internet, however, DNS server loads have not shown a massive increase in traffic, therefore demonstrating that internet use remains under control.

The internet is a network that is designed to handle the load. However, telework and distance learning will create an unprecedented load. Simple measures must therefore be taken to limit network load and make better use of the internet. Of course, these rules can be adapted depending on the tools you have at your disposal.

How do telecommunications networks work?

The internet network functions by sending packets between machines that are connected to it. An often-used analogy is that of the information highway. In this analogy, the information exchanged between machines of all kinds (computers, telephones and personal assistants, to name just a few) is divided into packets (small and large vehicles). Each packet travels through the network between a source and a destination. All current networks operate according to this principle: internet, wireless (wifi) and mobile (3G, 4G) networks etc.

The network must provide two important properties: reliability and communication speed.

Reliability ensures accurate communication between the source and the destination, meaning that information from the source is transmitted accurately to the destination. Should there be transmission errors, they are detected and the data is retransmitted. If there are too many errors, communication is interrupted. An example of this type of communication is email. The recipient must receive exactly what the sender has sent. Long packets are preferred for this type of communication in order to minimize communication errors and maximize the quantity of data transmitted.

Communication speed makes real-time communication possible. As such, the packets must all travel across the network as quickly as possible, and their crossing time must be roughly constant. This is true for voice networks (3G, 4G) and television. Should a packet be lost, its absence may be imperceptible. This applies to videos or sound, for example, since our brain compensates for the loss. In this case, it is better to lose a packet from time to time – this leads to communication of lower quality, but they remain useable in most cases.

Congestion problems

The network has a large overall capacity but it is limited for each of its components. When there is very high demand, certain components can become congested (routers, links – primarily fiber today, servers). In such cases, the two properties (reliability and speed) can break down.

For communications that require reliability (web, email), the network uses the TCP protocol (TCP from the expression “TCP/IP”). This protocol introduces a session mechanism, which is implemented to ensure reliability. When a packet is detected as lost by its source, it is retransmitted until the destination indicates that it has arrived. This retransmission of packets exacerbates network congestion, and what was a temporary slowdown turns into a bottleneck. To put it simply, the more congested the network, the more the sessions resend packets. Such congestion is a well-known phenomenon during the ‘internet rush hour’ after work.

If the source considers that a communication has been subject too many errors, it will close the “session.” When this occurs, a great quantity of data may be lost, since the source and the destination no longer know much about the other’s current state.  The congestion therefore causes a wastage of capacity, even once it is over.

For communications that require speed (video, voice), the network instead uses the UDP protocol. Unfortunately, routers are often configured to reject this kind of traffic in the event of a temporary overload. This makes it possible to prioritize traffic using sessions (TCP,  email, web). Losing a few packets in a video or voice communication is not a problem, but losing a significant amount can greatly affect the quality of the communication. Since the source and destination exchange only limited information about problems encountered, they may have the impression that they are communicating when this is not actually the case.

The following proposals aim to limit network load and congestion, in order to avoid a situation in which packets start to get lost. It should be noted that the user may be explicitly informed about this loss of packets, but this is not always the case. It may be observed following delays or a deterioration of communication quality.

What sort of communications should be prioritized in the professional sphere?

Professional use must prioritize connection time for exchanging emails or synchronizing files. But the majority of work should be carried out without being connected to the network, since for a great number of activities, there is no need to be connected.

The most crucial and probably most frequently-used tool is email. The main consequence of the network load may be the time it takes to send and transmit messages. The following best practices will allow you to send shorter, less bulky messages, and therefore make email use more fluid:

– Choose thick clients (Outlook, Thunderbird for example) rather than web-based clients (Outlook Web Access, Zimbra, Gmail for example) since using email in a browser increases data exchange. Moreover, using a thick client means that you do not always have to be connected to the network to send and receive emails.

– When responding to email, delete non-essential content, including attachments and signatures.

– Delete or simplify signatures, especially those that include icons and social media images.

– Send shorter messages than usual, giving preference to plain text.

– Do not add attachments or images that are not essential, and opt for exchanging attachments by shared disks or other services.

When it comes to file sharing, VPNs (for “Virtual Private Networks“) and cloud computing are the two main solutions. Corporate VPNs will likely be the preferred way to connect to company systems. As noted above, they should only be activated when needed, or potentially on a regular basis, but long sessions should be avoided as they may lead to network congestion.

Most shared disks can also be synchronized locally in order to work remotely. Synchronization is periodic and makes it possible to work offline, for example on office documents.

Keeping in touch with friends and family without overloading the network

Social media will undoubtedly be under great strain. Guidelines similar to those for email should be followed and photos, videos, animated GIFs and other fun but bulky content should only be sent on a limited basis.

Certain messages may be rejected by the network. Except in exceptional circumstances, you should wait for the load to ease before trying again.

Advertising represents a significant portion of web content and congests the network without benefits for the user. Most browsers can incorporate extensions (privacy badger) to delete such content automatically. Some browsers, such as Brave for example,  also offer this feature. In general, the use of these tools does not have an impact on important websites such as government websites.

Television and on-demand video services also place great strain on the network. When it comes to video, it is preferable to use TNT (terrestrial network) instead of boxes, which use the Internet. The use of VoD services should be limited, especially during the day, so as to give priority to educational and work applications. And a number of video services have limited their broadcast quality, which significantly reduces bandwidth consumption.

Cybercrime and security

The current crisis will unfortunately be used as an attack tool. Messages about coronavirus must be handled with caution. Such messages must be read carefully and care must be taken with regard to links they may contain if they do not lead to government websites. Attachments should not be opened. The Hoaxbuster website and the Décodeurs application by the Le Monde newspaper can be used to verify whether information is reliable.

At this time in which online meeting systems are extensively used, attention must be given to personal data protection.

The ARCEP (French regulator for telecom operators) provides guidelines for making the best use of the network. To best protect yourself from attacks, the ANSSI (French cybersecurity agency) rules for IT security are more important than ever at this time, when cybercriminalty may flourish.

[divider style=”dotted” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Hervé Debar, Head of the Telecommunications, Networks and Services Department at Télécom SudParis, Télécom SudParis – Institut Mines-Télécom; Gaël Thomas, Professor, Télécom SudParis – Institut Mines-Télécom ; Gregory Blanc, Associate Research Professor in cybersecurity, Télécom SudParis – Institut Mines-Télécom and Olivier Levillain, Associate Research Professor, Télécom SudParis – Institut Mines-Télécom

This article has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read original article (in French).

coronacheck, queries

CoronaCheck : separating fact from fiction in the Covid-19 epidemic

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Rumors about the origins of the Covid-19 epidemic and news about miracle cures are rampant. And some leaders have taken the liberty of putting forth questionable figures. To combat such misinformation, Paolo Papotti and his team at EURECOM have developed an algorithmic tool for the general public, which can determine the accuracy of the figures. In addition to its potential for informing the public about the epidemic, this work illustrates the challenges and current limitations of automated fact-checking tools.

 

The world is in the midst of an unprecedented health crisis, which has unfortunately been accompanied by an onslaught of incorrect or misleading information. Described by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an ‘infodemic’, such ‘fake news’ – which  is not a new problem – has been spreading over social media and by public figures. We see the effects this may have on the overall vision of this epidemic. One notable example is when public figures such as the president of the United States use incorrect figures to underestimate the impact of this virus and justify continuing the country’s economic activity.

“As IT researchers in data processing and information quality, we can contribute by providing an algorithmic tool to help with fact-checking,” says Paolo Papotti, a researcher at EURECOM. Working with PhD student Mohammed Saeed, and with support from Master’s student Youssef Doubli, he developed a tool that can check this information, following research previously carried out with Professor Immanuel Trummer from Cornell University.

Originally intended for the energy industry – where data is constantly changing and must be painstakingly verified – this tool, which is called CoronaCheck and is now available in French, was adapted in early March to meet current needs.

This fact-checking work is a job in its own right for many journalists: they must use reliable sources to check whether the information heard in various places is correct. And if it turns out to be a rumor, journalists must find sources and explanations to set the record straight. “Our tool does not seek to replace journalists’ investigative work,” explains Paolo Papotti, “but a certain amount of this information can be checked by an algorithm. Our goal is therefore to help social media moderators and journalists manage the wealth of information that is constantly springing up online.”

With millions of messages exchanged every day on networks like Twitter or Facebook, it is impossible for humans to accomplish such a task. Before checking information, at-risk claims must first be identified. But an algorithm can be used by these networks to analyze various data simultaneously and target misinformation. This is the aim of the research program funded by Google to combat misinformation online, which includes the CoronaCheck project. The goal is to provide the general public with a tool to verify figures relating to the epidemic.

A statistical tool

CoronaCheck is a statistical tool that is able to compare quantitative data with the proposed queries. The site works a bit like a search engine: the user enters a query – a claim – and CoronaCheck says whether it is true or false. For example, “there are more coronavirus cases in Italy than in France.”  It’s a tool that speaks with statistics. It can handle logical statements using terms such as “less than” or “constant” but will not understand queries such as “Donald Trump has coronavirus.”

“We think that it’s important for users to be able to understand CoronaCheck’s response,” adds Paolo Papotti. To go back to the previous example, the software will not only respond as to whether the statement is true or false, but will also provide details in its response. It will specify the number of cases in each country and the date for which these data are correct. “If the date is not specified, it will take the most recent results by default, meaning for the month of March,” says the researcher.

This means that it is essential to update the data regularly. “Every day, we enter the new data compiled by John Hopkins University,” he says. The university also collects data from several official sources such as the WHO and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

“We know that this tool isn’t perfect,” says Paolo Papotti. The system relies on machine learning, so the model must be trained. “We know that it is not exhaustive and that a user may enter a word that is unknown to the model.” User feedback is therefore essential in order to improve the system. Comments are analyzed to incorporate questions or wording of statements that have not been taken into account. Users must also follow CoronaCheck’s instructions and speak a language the system understands.

Ambiguity of language

It is important to recognize that language can be a significant barrier for an automatic verification tool since it is ambiguous.  The term “death rate” is a perfect example of such ambiguity. For the general public it refers to the mortality rate, meaning the number of deaths in relation to a population for a given period of time. However, the “death rate” can also mean the case fatality rate, meaning the number of deaths in relation to the total number of cases of the disease. The results will therefore differ greatly depending on the meaning of the term.

Such differences in interpretation are always possible in human language, but must not be possible be in this verification work. “So the system has to be able to provide two responses, one for each interpretation of death rate,” explains Paolo Papotti. This would also work in cases where a lack of rigor may lead to an interpretation problem.

If the user enters the query, “there are more cases in Italy than in the United States,” this may be true for February, but false for April. “Optimally, we would have to evolve towards a system that gives different responses, which are more complex than true or false,” says Paolo Papotti. “This is the direction we’re focusing on in order to solve this interpretation problem and go further than a statistical tool,” he adds.

The team is working on another system, which could respond to queries that cannot be  determined with statistics, for example, “Donald Trump has coronavirus.” This requires developing a different algorithm and the goal would be to combine the two systems. “We will then have to figure out how to assign a query to one system or another, and combine it all in a single interface that is accessible and easy to use.”

Tiphaine Claveau for I’MTech