公共卫生监测技术中的个性与公平性:接触者追踪应用的用户感知调查

Ellen Hohma;Ryan Burnell;Caitlin C. Corrigan;Christoph Luetge
{"title":"公共卫生监测技术中的个性与公平性:接触者追踪应用的用户感知调查","authors":"Ellen Hohma;Ryan Burnell;Caitlin C. Corrigan;Christoph Luetge","doi":"10.1109/TTS.2022.3211073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Machine learning algorithms are playing an increasingly important role in public health measures, accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is therefore vital that machine learning algorithms are applied in ways that are generally considered fair. However, the question of how to define fairness in a public health context is still an open one. In this study, we investigated people’s attitudes towards two ways of defining fairness in the context of Covid-19 contact tracing apps. In the first, ‘high-individuality’ approach, the likelihood of an algorithm asking a person to self-isolate would depend on the person’s individual characteristics, such as their risk of spreading the virus through regular contacts. In the second ‘low individuality’ approach, these individual characteristics would not be used to come to a decision. For each approach, participants rated its fairness, overall quality, and their privacy concerns, and answered questions about basic psychological need satisfaction. Participants rated the high-individuality approach as fairer and better overall compared to the low-individuality approach, despite having greater privacy concerns. Further, we found a strong correlation between the participants’ fairness perceptions and their overall impression of the tracking tool. Together, these findings suggest that people prefer individualised approaches in some contexts and perceive them as fairer. However, policy makers should consider the privacy trade-off of employing such measures.","PeriodicalId":73324,"journal":{"name":"IEEE transactions on technology and society","volume":"3 4","pages":"300-306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/8566059/9987552/09906425.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individuality and Fairness in Public Health Surveillance Technology: A Survey of User Perceptions in Contact Tracing Apps\",\"authors\":\"Ellen Hohma;Ryan Burnell;Caitlin C. Corrigan;Christoph Luetge\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/TTS.2022.3211073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Machine learning algorithms are playing an increasingly important role in public health measures, accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is therefore vital that machine learning algorithms are applied in ways that are generally considered fair. However, the question of how to define fairness in a public health context is still an open one. In this study, we investigated people’s attitudes towards two ways of defining fairness in the context of Covid-19 contact tracing apps. In the first, ‘high-individuality’ approach, the likelihood of an algorithm asking a person to self-isolate would depend on the person’s individual characteristics, such as their risk of spreading the virus through regular contacts. In the second ‘low individuality’ approach, these individual characteristics would not be used to come to a decision. For each approach, participants rated its fairness, overall quality, and their privacy concerns, and answered questions about basic psychological need satisfaction. Participants rated the high-individuality approach as fairer and better overall compared to the low-individuality approach, despite having greater privacy concerns. Further, we found a strong correlation between the participants’ fairness perceptions and their overall impression of the tracking tool. Together, these findings suggest that people prefer individualised approaches in some contexts and perceive them as fairer. However, policy makers should consider the privacy trade-off of employing such measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE transactions on technology and society\",\"volume\":\"3 4\",\"pages\":\"300-306\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/8566059/9987552/09906425.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE transactions on technology and society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9906425/\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE transactions on technology and society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9906425/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器学习算法在公共卫生措施中发挥着越来越重要的作用,新冠肺炎疫情加速了这一进程。因此,以通常认为公平的方式应用机器学习算法至关重要。然而,如何在公共卫生背景下定义公平仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。在这项研究中,我们调查了人们对新冠肺炎接触者追踪应用程序中定义公平的两种方式的态度。在第一种“高度个性化”方法中,算法要求一个人自我隔离的可能性取决于该人的个人特征,例如他们通过定期接触传播病毒的风险。在第二种“低个性”方法中,这些个人特征不会被用来做出决定。对于每种方法,参与者都对其公平性、整体质量和隐私问题进行了评分,并回答了有关基本心理需求满意度的问题。参与者认为,尽管有更大的隐私问题,但与低个性方法相比,高个性方法总体上更公平、更好。此外,我们发现参与者的公平感与他们对跟踪工具的总体印象之间存在着强烈的相关性。总之,这些发现表明,在某些情况下,人们更喜欢个性化的方法,并认为它们更公平。然而,政策制定者应该考虑采用此类措施的隐私权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Individuality and Fairness in Public Health Surveillance Technology: A Survey of User Perceptions in Contact Tracing Apps
Machine learning algorithms are playing an increasingly important role in public health measures, accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is therefore vital that machine learning algorithms are applied in ways that are generally considered fair. However, the question of how to define fairness in a public health context is still an open one. In this study, we investigated people’s attitudes towards two ways of defining fairness in the context of Covid-19 contact tracing apps. In the first, ‘high-individuality’ approach, the likelihood of an algorithm asking a person to self-isolate would depend on the person’s individual characteristics, such as their risk of spreading the virus through regular contacts. In the second ‘low individuality’ approach, these individual characteristics would not be used to come to a decision. For each approach, participants rated its fairness, overall quality, and their privacy concerns, and answered questions about basic psychological need satisfaction. Participants rated the high-individuality approach as fairer and better overall compared to the low-individuality approach, despite having greater privacy concerns. Further, we found a strong correlation between the participants’ fairness perceptions and their overall impression of the tracking tool. Together, these findings suggest that people prefer individualised approaches in some contexts and perceive them as fairer. However, policy makers should consider the privacy trade-off of employing such measures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信