The Balancing Test Between Data Privacy and Public Health in a Pandemic
The 2019 novel coronavirus “COVID” has disrupted every facet of daily life. From closing schools to altering the 9-to-5 workday, the pandemic has made us question constructs that have long been established as “the way it is.” Every institution has had to come up with unprecedented new solutions, such as impose mandatory quarantine and create contract tracing methods to flatten the curve. Unsurprisingly, governments have increased surveillance to control the spread of COVID. How far should such surveillance go? Is your privacy at risk?
As we continue the fight against COVID and shift to a new norm, we must find a balance between individual privacy and public health. Contact tracing threatens individual privacy because the surveillance technology created in the midst of COVID will have long-term privacy implications.
Companies, such as Apple and Google, are offering technology assisted contact tracing (“contact tracing”) solutions as the front lines against COVID. The Apple-Google solution is voluntary and allegedly anonymous, aiming to control the spread of the virus by using Bluetooth technology. The Apple-Google solution records a user’s whereabouts, relationships and activities. It is a good idea in theory. But, in practice, such tracing technology is at its infancy and its efficacy is still in question. For instance, Norway temporarily suspended their nationwide contact tracing app due to security concerns as it turned out the app was gathering more data than it needs to track the virus. They deleted all data collected as a result because it constituted a disproportionate intrusion in citizens’ privacy. Ultimately, because contact tracing gathers so much information of an individual’s day-to-day, critics say that use of contact tracing at scale could roll back years of regulatory efforts by collecting sensitive location data.
Contact tracing apps are not narrowly tailored to only track one’s contact with COVID. It goes further because it records an individual’s every movement and current location making it difficult to anonymize a person. It is more intrusive than necessary to achieve its main purpose. While it may sound imperative now, it is a slippery slope not only because it implicitly gives the government the actual data and the authorization for mass surveillance but also because the data it collects is stored in one centralized database, making it susceptible to security breaches.
In time, contact tracing methods can be developed to both serve public health and protect individual privacy. While governments and institutions have yet to find a solution that successfully balances both, we must safeguard individual privacy and not turn a blind eye in the rise of any form of surveillance.
