Why is Quebec against a tracing app? Here’s a clue: In a 77-page report, its science and technology ethics commission studied the issue in detail but failed to recommend that the government should use such an app https://www.ethique.gouv.qc.ca/media/1372/cest_application-tracage-2020.pdf

In August, Quebec’s National Assembly held three days of parliamentary hearings into tracing apps, hearing from a bunch of experts. The takeaway seemed negative because of mostly unfounded privacy concerns. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1726259/coronavirus-application-tracage-covid-assemblee-commission-ethique

There was also a prevailing sense of “it’s not perfect, therefore we shouldn’t use it.” For example, it was pointed out that many old people don’t have modern cellphones. QS MNA @GNadeauDubois concluded the app would lead to unequal access to healthcare.

Some experts who appeared at the committee had some alarmist warnings. One, for example, said Bluetooth could be hacked, and so the app (which uses Bluetooth) presents a risk. The transcript is here: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/travaux-parlementaires/commissions/ci-42-1/journal-debats/CI-200814.html

That expert cited the “BleedingBit” vulnerability, even though I can’t find any evidence it’s been used to exploit smartphones. And the entire point only makes sense if you assume people wouldn’t otherwise have Bluetooth enabled, a caveat that was not made clear to lawmakers.

There seemed to be a sense that the risk of someone in close proximity going through extraordinary efforts to hack into your cellphone was higher than the risk of someone in close proximity exposing you to a deadly pandemic virus you could then unknowingly propagate.

One expert, @Geodoc31 of Université Laval, who has a PhD in … uhh… geography, argued that because a Bluetooth-based app doesn’t know exactly how far someone was or whether they were wearing a mask, it “would not be useful” in stopping COVID-19.

Overall, the experts brought up several legitimate concerns — privacy, security, false positives, protection of personal information — but most of those have either already been dealt with by Apple and Google or are minor or unavoidable.

Crucially, there were few places where people demonstrated a problem with the app and proposed a solution that would make it better. But still, they were hesitant to actually recommend its use. Experts wanted more study, apparently unconcerned that we’re in an emergency.

It’s easy to blame the politicians for concluding that the COVID Alert app is a bad idea. But the transcripts suggest that politicians were led astray by experts excited to point out minor or even hypothetical problems or lacked the courage to firmly recommend the app’s use.

And remember, what we’re talking about is the Quebec government *allowing* people to use an *entirely voluntary* application to slow down a pandemic. None of this would be forced on anyone.

This seems like a textbook example of perfect being the enemy of good. The COVID Alert app isn’t perfect, therefore politicians of all four parties have apparently concluded we shouldn’t allow or facilitate its use. That kind of logic is going to get people killed.

Here’s Liberal @marwahrizqy regurgitating arguments against the COVID Alert app: there might be false positives, it’s “not a panacea”, it needs too many users to be effective, it’s “not a tracing app” (?), false sense of security, alternative devices, etc. https://www.fm93.com/audio/334427/marwah-rizqy-deputee-de-saint-laurent-une-application-de-tracage-pour-la-covid-19-une-bonne-idee