orking from the ashes of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States implemented the Patriot Act just 45 days after the crisis, hoping the piece of legislation would help the government apprehend terrorists. However, a law implemented to protect the average citizen from terrorism ended up terrorizing the average citizen. The Patriot Act authorized the FBI to issue National Security Letters (NSLs) that allowed them to search through personal information, such as banking history or phone records without a warrant. A total of 192,499 NSLs were issued in the name of preventing terrorism, but the searches only led to one terrorist conviction alongside countless irreversible violations of privacy.
Many have remarked that the global conversations about the conflict between security concerns and privacy rights in light of the coronavirus crisis are similar to American discussions held in the aftermath of 9/11. As states struggle to contain the pandemic even in its tenth month, surveillance methods can be an attractive prospect for reducing community spread of the disease. However, from a civil liberties standpoint, COVID-19 has created yet another situation where privacy concerns have played second fiddle to several actions taken in the name of national security.
In March, several countries had already compromised citizen privacy in the name of national security concerns caused by the coronavirus. The Singaporean Ministry of Health began posting shockingly detailed descriptions of each coronavirus patient online, hoping to notify individuals who might have come into contact with people who tested positive. In Mexico, public health officials contacted Uber about a passenger who had been infected with COVID-19, resulting in the suspension of two drivers who had given them rides. And in China, an app called Alipay Health Code assigns people a color code—red, green, or yellow—which indicates their health status and whether they can access public services like transportation within Chinese cities. A New York Times analysis indicated that though the software’s ultimate connection to Chinese police is unclear, Chinese media reports that law enforcement was a crucial partner in developing the software system, and it appears that the app sends data to a server which law enforcement may access.
However, in some states with high levels of government surveillance there has been a public health payoff. South Korea is one of the counties that has best handled the coronavirus crisis best; Bloomberg ranked it fourth out of fifty-three countries in terms of which countries were best to live in during the pandemic. South Korea has also used extensive surveillance tracking in its COVID-19 response plan, tracking infected citizens through their mobile phones, car GPSs, and credit card transactions.
Of course, surveillance is not a one-size-fits-all solution to managing a pandemic. Israel, for example, introduced surveillance methods early when the country’s internal security agency began monitoring the phone usage of infected citizens in March, and the surveillance method has been used on and off again ever since. However, citizen surveillance has not succeeded at curbing the pandemic in Israel. Surveillance alone only counted for 7% of coronavirus case detection within Israel, with questioning by the Health Ministry accounting for all other case detection. Further, Bloomberg ranks Israel twenty-first on its list of best countries to live in during the pandemic—hardly a coronavirus success story like South Korea.
Ultimately, the largest concern about the increased use of surveillance to curb the COVID-19 crisis is that states will not relinquish their data-collecting powers once the pandemic is over. Oftentimes, governments hold onto powers gained during crises indefinitely. Even almost two decades after 9/11, American intelligence agencies still hold most of the sweeping powers given to them during the crisis. Civil rights advocates fear that similar circumstances are likely to lead in lasting changes to government power across the world. In the aftermath, the surveillance methods employed in countries like China or South Korea may persist long after this crisis is over. Time will tell what long term impact the COVID-19 pandemic might have on privacy rights around the world.
a global affairs media network
COVID-19 Surveillance Brings Mixed Results Amid Security Concerns
December 29, 2020
W
orking from the ashes of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States implemented the Patriot Act just 45 days after the crisis, hoping the piece of legislation would help the government apprehend terrorists. However, a law implemented to protect the average citizen from terrorism ended up terrorizing the average citizen. The Patriot Act authorized the FBI to issue National Security Letters (NSLs) that allowed them to search through personal information, such as banking history or phone records without a warrant. A total of 192,499 NSLs were issued in the name of preventing terrorism, but the searches only led to one terrorist conviction alongside countless irreversible violations of privacy.
Many have remarked that the global conversations about the conflict between security concerns and privacy rights in light of the coronavirus crisis are similar to American discussions held in the aftermath of 9/11. As states struggle to contain the pandemic even in its tenth month, surveillance methods can be an attractive prospect for reducing community spread of the disease. However, from a civil liberties standpoint, COVID-19 has created yet another situation where privacy concerns have played second fiddle to several actions taken in the name of national security.
In March, several countries had already compromised citizen privacy in the name of national security concerns caused by the coronavirus. The Singaporean Ministry of Health began posting shockingly detailed descriptions of each coronavirus patient online, hoping to notify individuals who might have come into contact with people who tested positive. In Mexico, public health officials contacted Uber about a passenger who had been infected with COVID-19, resulting in the suspension of two drivers who had given them rides. And in China, an app called Alipay Health Code assigns people a color code—red, green, or yellow—which indicates their health status and whether they can access public services like transportation within Chinese cities. A New York Times analysis indicated that though the software’s ultimate connection to Chinese police is unclear, Chinese media reports that law enforcement was a crucial partner in developing the software system, and it appears that the app sends data to a server which law enforcement may access.
However, in some states with high levels of government surveillance there has been a public health payoff. South Korea is one of the counties that has best handled the coronavirus crisis best; Bloomberg ranked it fourth out of fifty-three countries in terms of which countries were best to live in during the pandemic. South Korea has also used extensive surveillance tracking in its COVID-19 response plan, tracking infected citizens through their mobile phones, car GPSs, and credit card transactions.
Of course, surveillance is not a one-size-fits-all solution to managing a pandemic. Israel, for example, introduced surveillance methods early when the country’s internal security agency began monitoring the phone usage of infected citizens in March, and the surveillance method has been used on and off again ever since. However, citizen surveillance has not succeeded at curbing the pandemic in Israel. Surveillance alone only counted for 7% of coronavirus case detection within Israel, with questioning by the Health Ministry accounting for all other case detection. Further, Bloomberg ranks Israel twenty-first on its list of best countries to live in during the pandemic—hardly a coronavirus success story like South Korea.
Ultimately, the largest concern about the increased use of surveillance to curb the COVID-19 crisis is that states will not relinquish their data-collecting powers once the pandemic is over. Oftentimes, governments hold onto powers gained during crises indefinitely. Even almost two decades after 9/11, American intelligence agencies still hold most of the sweeping powers given to them during the crisis. Civil rights advocates fear that similar circumstances are likely to lead in lasting changes to government power across the world. In the aftermath, the surveillance methods employed in countries like China or South Korea may persist long after this crisis is over. Time will tell what long term impact the COVID-19 pandemic might have on privacy rights around the world.
