COVID-19 Survey: Data Collection Without Clear Objectives

“The art of asking a question should be of greater value than answering it.” Although Georg Cantor was referring to the mathematical sciences, this statement could also be applied to the world of surveys. The information that

“The art of asking a question should be of greater value than answering it.” Although Georg Cantor was referring to the mathematical sciences, this statement could also apply to the world of surveys. The information obtained from a survey can be very valuable if the survey has been well designed. Therefore, before beginning to draft a questionnaire, a good survey researcher should answer a simple question: Why? As in many other countries in the region, the Peruvian government has been using the mass collection of its citizens’ personal data as one of its tools to address the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. The latest tool is a massive digital survey, sent via a USSD code to the cell phones of more than 20 million people. But, like other strategies, it suffers from the same shortcomings: a lack of transparency and necessary privacy safeguards. Unclear Objective The “National COVID-19 Survey” was launched on June 28 as an initiative that will allow the Peruvian government to understand the population’s situation regarding the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 and implement preventive measures against it. It is expected that the survey will reach 20 million people through the chosen delivery method (USSD code, which does not require an internet connection), the collaboration of all mobile phone operators in the country, and a call for citizens to complete the survey weekly while the National State of Emergency is in effect. The survey includes questions regarding the respondent’s age group, how often they go out, whether they have any symptoms associated with COVID-19 and for how long, whether they have left the district where they are located, whether they have had physical contact with people suspected of having or confirmed to have COVID-19, and whether they engage in activities that involve contact with others (health care, retail, cleaning, etc.); as well as similar questions regarding the people with whom they live. Up to 18 questions may be asked. However, no one knows for certain what specific actions the government will take with this information. The survey’s Privacy Policy contains certain purposes whose vague wording may satisfy the traditional checklist of a data protection attorney but will likely be difficult for the general public being surveyed to understand. Generic phrases such as “proactively, comprehensively, inclusively, and continuously assessing the population’s situation regarding COVID-19” or “implementing preventive and objective measures in response to the pandemic” reveal very little about the survey’s specific objective. Probably the most specifically stated measure in the privacy policy is “making decisions regarding the reopening of areas based on the symptoms exhibited by their residents.” Another purpose outlined in the Privacy Policy is to “identify cases requiring priority attention in order to report them to the Ministry of Health.” Apparently, in this case, the Ministry of Health would indeed have access to the respondent’s cell phone number and location, but it is not specified when a case would qualify as a priority, nor within how many days, nor how the ministry will communicate this information—or whether it will do so at all. According to a public statement by the Secretary of Digital Government of the Office of the President of the Council of Ministers—although this is not mentioned in the Privacy Policy— the survey responses will also be uploaded to the “Perú en tus manos” mobile app, whose actual purpose and implementation remain a mystery to most of the population. It has only recently come to light—three months after its launch—that this app is intended to serve as a centralized digital contact-tracing tool. In other words, the information will not remain solely on people’s cell phones but will be transferred to a government server. This model of digital contact tracing has raised serious concerns worldwide among organizations such as the WHO, the European Data Protection Board, and Privacy International. Beyond the good intentions and hard work of dozens of government officials, academics, and private-sector employees who have worked on the app, there remains the risk that the government will misuse this immense amount of information, both during and after the emergency. The vagueness surrounding the specific purposes of the survey conducted by the Executive Branch may be a symptom of something more serious: the government’s own uncertainty. The only thing worse than asking the wrong questions is asking them pointlessly—without knowing what the responses will be used for. It is only a short step from uncertainty to suspicion. “Informed” consent? The first version of the message sent by the government along with the survey read as follows: “Government of Peru. Do you agree to share your cell phone number, approximate location, and responses for COVID-19 analysis?” and there were only two options: Accept or Do Not Accept. There was no mention of the survey itself, nor was there any indication of where to find the rules governing the processing of personal data that would be collected through the survey. A second version of the message does refer to the survey and includes a link providing a bit more information about it and allowing users to download the privacy policy. Clearly, this constituted a violation of the Personal Data Protection Act, which requires obtaining prior, free, and informed consent before collecting data (Articles 13 and 28). Although this was improved in the second version of the message, it is unrealistic to think that people would search for and read the privacy policy before filling out the survey. Although the problem of privacy policies being excessively long and difficult to understand is not an issue exclusive to Peru or its government, it is ironic that the government participates in this charade in which it pretends to adequately inform its citizens about the mass collection of their information. What is concerning is the government’s failure to make a sufficient effort to properly publicize the survey and to be clearer and more transparent with citizens regarding its objectives, as well as regarding the responses that citizens might expect from the government. There is no doubt that it is important for the government to have access to information provided by citizens in order to better assess the population’s needs, prioritize assistance for the most affected sectors, and take policy actions that enable us to address this pandemic and its repercussions. However, without transparency and respect for individuals’ privacy, any measure is doomed to mistrust and, likely, failure. Andrés Calderón, Director of the Legal Clinic for Freedom of Information at the Universidad del Pacífico (Peru) and consultant for CELE’s Legislative Observatory on Freedom of Expression. Susana Gonzales, Assistant at the Research Center of the Universidad del Pacífico (Peru) Image credit: Adli Wahid