Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T12:46:15.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2021

Michele Vespe*
Affiliation:
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
Stefano Maria Iacus
Affiliation:
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
Carlos Santamaria
Affiliation:
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
Francesco Sermi
Affiliation:
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
Spyridon Spyratos
Affiliation:
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: michele.vespe@ec.europa.eu

Abstract

The rapid spread of COVID-19 infections on a global level has highlighted the need for accurate, transparent and timely information regarding collective mobility patterns to inform de-escalation strategies as well as to provide forecasting capacity for re-escalation policies aiming at addressing further waves of the virus. Such information can be extracted using aggregate anonymized data from innovative sources such as mobile positioning data. This paper presents lessons learnt and results of a unique Business-to-Government initiative between several mobile network operators in Europe and the European Commission. Mobile positioning data have supported policy-makers and practitioners with evidence and data-driven knowledge to understand and predict the spread of the disease, the effectiveness of the containment measures, their socio-economic impacts while feeding scenarios at European Union scale and in a comparable way across countries. The challenges of these data sharing initiative are not limited to data quality, harmonization, and comparability across countries, however important they are. Equally essential aspects that need to be addressed from the onset are related to data privacy, security, fundamental rights, and commercial sensitivity.

Information

Type
Translational Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© European Uniion, 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with Data for Policy
Figure 0

Figure 1. Number of cases in previous 7 days for the dates March 15 and 31 (top), April 15 and 30, 2020 (bottom) over mobility functional areas (MFAs) in Austria. The COVID-19 geographic spread seems to follow MFAs more than the number of political districts (GKZ) borders (Iacus et al., 2021a).

Figure 1

Figure 2. The mobility visualization platform allows the access and visualization of the three products (left: mobility indicators, top right: connectivity matrices, and bottom right: mobility functional areas), presenting insights comparable at national, regional, and Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)3 level and combining ECDC data. Access to the platform is provided to practitioners and policy-makers in the Commission, ECDC, and European Union (EU) Member States.

Supplementary material: PDF

Vespe et al. supplementary material

Vespe et al. supplementary material 1

Download Vespe et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2.5 MB
Supplementary material: PDF

Vespe et al. supplementary material

Vespe et al. supplementary material 2

Download Vespe et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 93.8 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.

Author comment: On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19 — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editor,

I am enclosing a submission to the Special Collection on Telco Big Data Analytics for COVID-19 of the Data & Policy journal. The paper introduces lessons learnt, results and recommendations business-to-government data sharing initiative between several Mobile Network Operators in Europe and the European Commission to help fight COVID-19.

Sincerely,

Michele

Review: On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19 — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

No Conflicts of Interest.

Comments

Comments to Author: With the prevalence of COVID-19, the manuscript details how a Public Private Partnership on data sharing and exchange could effectively help combat against infectious virus in the epidemic or pandemic situations. This paper highlights an on-going effort in a unique Business-to-Government (B2G) initiative between several Mobile Network Operators in Europe and the European Commission.

It is well explained in the paper that why MNO data is very important compared to other openly available data derived from social media in perspective of level of granularity, representativity and relevance to high human mobility. It is truly remarkable that data from 15 MNOs covering 22 EU member States and Norway have been transferred to the Commission on a daily basis which could be used to help quality of epidemiological modelling of virus spread and forecasting of the future pandemic. It would seem all but natural that this Initiative would have extensively used the AI and Big Data technology in analyzing and processing the data but no mentioning it. It is recommended to make an explicit reference to the use of the AI and Big Data technology.

This B2G initiative clearly demonstrated the potential of data sharing and clear definitions and attributes of Mobility Data as well as insights of Mobility Data Products along with the challenges and recommendation should be fully considered for well preparedness of new virus waves.

One observation is that this initiative focuses on usage of anonymized data (due to privacy regulations) which has primary purpose of virus spread modelling. However, in some countries like Korea, usage of non anonymized data are allowed under strict conditions (such as pandemic) that has proven very effective in terms of tracing and tracking of potentially virus exposed people, and alert and bring them to test for virus infections and treatments if necessary.

The paper lays out important recommendations on what are critically needed to strengthen the preparedness for future pandemics. Acknowledging that there are different levels of tolerance and acceptance, it is of a recommendation of the Reviewer that their subsequent work would consider including the sharing of non anonymized data for the purpose of public good.

* Note to the Authors: The Broadband Commission hosted by ITU and UNESCO (www.broadbandcommission.org) has published a report on the Epidemic Preparedness which also highlights an importance of MNO data sharing to combat the Epidemic/Pandemic

ITU-UNESCO Broadband Commission Working Group Epidemic Preparedness (www.broadbandcommission.org/workinggroups/Pages/Epidemic-Preparedness.aspx)

Full Report (www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/publications/EpidemicPreparednessReport2018.pdf)

Executive Summary (www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/BBCOM%20WG%20Epidemic%20Preparedness%20Final%20Print%20(Executive%20Summary).pdf)

Review: On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19 — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer is employed by Vodafone Group and has provided data for this project.

Comments

Comments to Author: Overall this is a very important and interesting initiative. I am glad to see it explained here and to note its unprecedented scale. The EC-JRC has done great work in partnering with the industry and adapting quickly to address important issues, even with all the hurdles posed by the very nature of working with different competitors at the same time.

I would recommend adding a little more on the impact or potential impact of the results obtained. It may be early and difficult to measure the impact of the initiative, but you can certainly clarify the potential it has, and how it can (and probably should) be used by policymakers in the response to the pandemic.

Furthermore, I would like to see a further explanation or a deeper dive into the heterogeneity issues. These stem not only from a technical and technological standpoint but also due to a lack of harmonisation in regulation across Europe, with distinct interpretations of ePrivacy and GDPR across the continent; furthermore there is sometimes ambiguity on what are “sufficient levels” of anonymisation. This poses a problem for the homogenous formats that would most definitely be helpful and drive initiatives like these further, faster. Of course this is just one of the aspects that contribute to the heterogeneity, but I believe it to be an important one.

The article is very interesting and significant, and it shows what we should be working on to empower policymakers with real data-driven decisions.

More detailed comments:

Page 3:

I would recommend clarifying the dates for these initiatives (e.g. the HLEG is from 2018-19), in order to clearly showcase the timelines and how the COVID-19 initiative is well aligned with previous work.

Page 4:

This paragraph: “As opposed to openly available mobility data derived e.g. from social media, MNO data provide a level of granularity, frequency of update, representativity (coverage of large fraction of the population) and a higher level of transparency that make this dataset valuable in terms of insights that can be extracted about human mobility.” - could easily be challenged by other players in mobility data that derive it from apps or social media. I would recommend giving concise but concrete justifications further on in the paper of why mobile data has all these advantages (no dependency on smartphones, more representative particularly of older populations etc) and add some of of caveats as well (in some cases only active events are captured, potential for data loss, potential for regional or MNO specific bias, etc)

Page 8, in what way do you believe the MFAs will lead to a better balance between the public health and the socioeconomic impact? Could you also provide a short explanation here on how these are created, as I believe it would be hard to understand what these areas are just from reading this paragraph. Including a figure would be valuable in order to show what these represent

Page 9 - in the Privacy, Commercial Sensitivity and Fundamental Rights, could you please clarify how the Reasonability Test was performed? This topic is extremely relevant for policy and so I believe it would benefit from a quick high level explanation of the method

Page 10: the establishment of a multi-disciplinary group of experts is a great idea, but do you see this as a point of collaboration between industry and government bodies? It is unclear where the experts would be coming from but in my opinion the case would be stronger if it advocated for a private-public sector collaboration. Furthermore, and if you have space, could you address the issues of sustainability for this group? What you are proposing would be a short-term, long-term collaboration? Are there any potential caveats with funding this initiative?

The Ethics Committee, who would be appointed? Once again I would say that the partnerships with the industry would be extremely relevant here. Furthermore, the Risk Assessment section could (and maybe should) be an entry point to the Ethical Assessment, as it will be quintessential to address potential unintended consequences and privacy risks.

The matters of a common standard across MNOs are extremely relevant, but do you see an issue with their implementation? Given the large costs of maintaining, curating, processing the datasets, how do you see the industry implementation motivation? There could be a problem here with misalignment of goals that would be important to address even if briefly. The publicly available insights would also pose a commercially sensitive risk for the MNOs, so I would recommend that the analysis of what can be made public should be left to the same multi disciplinary groups involving public and private sector, as I referred above.

Review: On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19 — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

I am not sure if these are conflicts of interest, but for full disclosure I list them here: 1. I worked at an MNO (Telefonica Research) from 2009 till 2014 as a staff researcher. 2. After leaving, I have continued to collaborate with researchers at Telefonica Research.

Comments

Comments to Author: The authors describe outcomes and experiences of using CDR-based data from 15 MNOs in 22 European countries. This is an unprecedented effort, and the paper is promising in that a lot of organizations and researchers could learn from the authors experiences. Nevertheless, I would recommend the authors to move beyond well known lessons and dig deeper into their insights and recommendations to make this paper worth publishing.

The paper title suggests a focus on challenges and lessons learnt from B2G experiences in the context of MNOs, the European Commission and covid-19. Nevertheless, 2/3 of the paper are devoted to present a summary of results from other papers that the authors have already published (including one in this journal).

Despite devoting a good part of the paper to the summary of results, these felt insufficient and were hard to follow at times given that so many details are omitted. Just to name a few, the “common denominator” or the “Trusted Smart Statistics concept” were simply named and references provided. However, without clarifying these, it is hard to understand and evaluate the core technical contributions of the mobility data products. The summary should be self-contained and clearer. Having said that, I do not think that this is the intended main contribution of the paper, despite the fact that a considerable number of pages are devoted to it. Nevertheless, given that the authors wrote about it, and appear to want to include it, my recommendation would be for the summary to be understandable as a stand-alone.

On the other hand, challenges and recommendations, which according to the title are the main contribution of this paper were shallow and not novel most of the times. Some of the challenges mentioned: end-to-end encryption for data transfers, non-disclosure agreements, limited access, communication to address reputational damage or data retention horizons are well known and already in place for many B2X collaborations (with X being government, international organizations or research organizations).

Similarly the recommendations were also not very novel: working group of experts, ethics committee, communication committee. The last paragraph was possibly the most interesting in which the authors correctly point to the need of defining a shared data standard, a la GTFS, but for CDR data.

In my opinion, the paper is neither a good summary of the technical contributions, not a thorough discussion of the challenges and lessons learnt. However, I think that putting together data from 15 MNOs and 22 countries is an unprecedented effort. I am sure the authors might have experienced challenges that no other researchers have been exposed to before, and these challenges are the ones that the authors should surface in their paper.

First, I would recommend the authors to shorten the summary description and make it crisper. Some information is not needed, while other critical points as mentioned above are left to the reader to guess. In addition, to make this paper novel, the authors should probably delve more into the challenges, recommendations and general lessons learnt from their experience. Next, I describe a few suggestions that I think would be extremely interesting and novel contributions from a policy and data perspective:

1. Data sharing protocols were briefly described. It would be important to further discuss how were the B2G agreements implemented, what were the negotiations necessary to put in place such a large scale collaboration? A qualitative analysis of expectations and pain points across participants would be extremely interesting.

2. Can “trusted intermediaries” only be european commission groups? What are the opportunities for others, and what does it mean in terms of data transparency and equity? Do we have to assume that workers at the european commission are always neutral? In other words, shouldn’t other types of intermediaries such as advocacy groups be able to see this data and extract policy findings (e.g., human rights organizations would benefit from using location data)?

3. This journal focuses on the intersection of policy and data. It would be advisable to thoroughly discuss the ways in which the mobility data products and insights revealed by this research project were used for policy. How were the EU or national policies during covid-19 guided or informed by the outcomes of these analyses? Time and again, the research community and research units at MNOs have published papers with findings for potential social impact, and time and again these have been mostly ignored. What is it that makes this collaboration successful from a policy perspective and why? It would be extremely important to understand what is the secret for success in the CDR data to policy pipeline, if the authors have been successful at that.

4. Another important component aligned to policy and data is that of comparing findings to other sources. If the insights identified by this project were in fact used for policy, what were the insights that could only be identified by CDR data and not identified by other sources of information? For example, location intelligence companies also collect location data, or aggregators that bring together mobile app location data. How are these complementary (or not) to CDR data, and why?

5. It would also be important to clarify the sustainability of the collaboration between MNOs and the European Commission, or with other “trusted intermediaries”. These collaborations are often times ad-hoc, and only due to extreme events such as a pandemic. I would like to learn more about the authors’ perspective on how these types of collaborations can be sustained over time and what would be best practices for that.

Other comments.

These are minor comments that I think would improve the paper if clarified.

1. In the Introduction (page 4), the authors claim that getting “raw” mobility data increases transparency because insights are not extracted by MNOs but rather by external researchers. Nevertheless, it would be important to clarify the numerous pre-processing decisions that MNOs make prior to distributing the “raw” data to interested parties. I would in fact argue that the data provided by MNOs is not raw at all. It would be important to clarify the pre-processing steps followed by MNOs for full transparency. For example, some MNOs apply algorithms to identify gender or age, or home locations, and these might introduce noise into the data, or even worse, remove certain users.

2. In Section 2, it would be important to clarify what do the authors mean by “harmonization”. How was the “common denominator” defined? Also, please clarify the “Trusted Smart Statistics concept” mentioned as a better solution in the paper.

3. The privacy challenge (page 9) left me wondering about how the “Reasonability test” has been carried out. How did the authors assess re-identification risks if they did not have the original data? Also in this section, it would be important to clarify what are the “legitimate business interests of the operators” that were protected, mostly to clear concerns and for full transparency.

4. There is no “Data availability statement” provided. Data was indirectly used for this paper, I just wanted to raise this point for the Editor, not sure if it would be required in this case.

Recommendation: On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19 — R0/PR5

Comments

Comments to Author: Very important paper about a unique and an important initiative. Pease take into account the comments of the reviewers where possibly. Since the focus is on policy, if you need to extend content, prioritise the policy side and less the technical side. Including some figures would make it easier to read. Where you can, please add something of the use of the insights by policymakers and health professionals, for example the eHealth network. Also try to rethink some of the real challenges (as one reviewer notices, many of them are known challenges) of such a large and important initiative. There must be much to learn from.

Decision: On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19 — R0/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19 — R1/PR7

Comments

This is a revesed version of the manuscript (we attach a clean version, a trach changes version and the response to reviewers files).The authors would like to thank the associate editor and the reviewers for the extensive and valuable comments provided. We have addressed them in the new version of the paper.

Recommendation: On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19 — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: On the use of data from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight COVID-19 — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.