While the use of digital tracing to fight against Covid-19 divides even the majority, Stéphane Séjourné, LREM MEP and rapporteur of the Renew group on the ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, believes that the subject must give place "for public debate and discussion at European level".
The former adviser of Emmanuel Macron at the Elysée expresses his reservations, judging that "a tracing tool can only be one element of a more global palette, not a miracle solution".
The use of digital tracing to combat the Covid-19 is debated by the majority. What is your position ?
STÉPHANE STAYED. First of all, the debate on deconfinement must not provoke the demobilization of the French. We must support the effort. But if a digital tracking device is envisaged by the government, it must first be submitted to a public debate and a discussion at European level.
A debate in what form?
It is up to the government to determine it and find the modalities. The method, which consists of finding answers according to a health and political consensus, must continue to prevail.
What safeguards, if any, should be put in place?
Political Newsletter
Every day, political news seen by Le ParisienI'm registering
Your email address is collected by Le Parisien to allow you to receive our news and commercial offers. Find out more
With confinement, it is individual behavior that protects the collective. Individual effort is an act of solidarity. It is the meaning of the certificate of derogatory displacement which is a commitment on honor. We must keep this philosophy, based on respect for the rules and trust in individuals. This is what differentiates us from authoritarian regimes, where there is a priori control over movements.
What if it is set up on the basis of “voluntary commitment”, as the Prime Minister has mentioned?
For this to be acceptable, there should be no use of personal data or geolocation information, comply with the European data standard, the GDPR, and be based on consent. However, if everyone does not comply, the measure loses its interest since it takes a critical mass of participants for it to work. In short, the question is as follows: if we take the necessary guarantees, if we do not derogate from our national and European law, does using tracing remain effective?
The President spoke of this crisis as a "test for the solidity of our democracy". Does this apply to these questions?
Yes, because it is wrong to think that Big Brother can save us. And politically, this amounts to admitting that authoritarian regimes are better equipped than democracies to respond to the crisis. We do not have a culture of hypersurveillance, of denunciation. We must be careful with these questions. It can also come back in boomerang, including in opinion.
Is the majority likely to fracture on the issue of public freedoms?
No. We are all democrats attentive to these questions.
There are, however, important variations in the positions ...
It's normal. As there must be a public debate, there must also be a debate among the majority. But I don't see any major differences. I see, however, with the Poles who confuse health and safety measures or with Marine Le Pen!
Beyond questions of public liberties, what practical obstacles do you see to the application of such measures?
First, everyone should have a smartphone compatible with the application. However, the most fragile, the most exposed are the elderly, the precarious. And it is precisely the part of the population which is the least equipped. A tracing tool can therefore only be one element of a more global palette, but not a quick fix.
What is it ?
The real miracle solution is that European and French research finds a drug or a vaccine. If there was a derogation to the GDPR, I would prefer that it is on health data to put the package on research, rather than on safety.
In the meantime, are there alternatives to tracing?
The democratic response to tracing is barrier gestures, containment. But also the progressive equipment of the general public in masks and the testing policy, with a massive screening campaign. In no case is it an algorithm or an application that will protect people.
Was it a mistake not to recommend the widespread use of the mask at the start of the epidemic, because of the shortage?
The government has faced a global shortage and has said it very well ever since. At the start of the crisis, we had 150 million masks in stock. Caregivers had to be given priority. Now, everything is done to democratize and accelerate the obtaining of masks by the general public.
All of this confirms the idea that deconfinement will be even more complex to manage, than confinement ...
Effectively. The risk is that people think it's over and there is a loosening. But there will be new social constraints. We will also have to coordinate deconfinement at European level, which we did not do for containment.
That is to say ?
This means informing each other about our public policies, in particular to establish what works and what does not work. This is what the President of the Republic defended from the start with his counterparts. The Italian example is revealing. Many have said to themselves, "Don't they do too much? "And in reality no ...
But is it possible? Europe seems more divided than ever?
In Europe, everyone needs everyone. And in particular of the internal market, which is our tool to restart economically. If there is no will, there will be at least an obligation.
