This month, several imported cases of COVID-19 have been reported in Taiwan, including some confirmed cases with unknown infection sources. With the global pandemic ongoing and a timeline for an approved vaccine unclear, Taiwan is again shadowed by fears of a second wave of infections.
In response to the situation, politicians and government officials have proposed new surveillance technology, to preserve the success of disease prevention efforts.
Former vice president Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) has said that the key to winning the war against COVID-19 lies in innovative technologies and techniques, such as mobile apps that aid in social distancing and monitoring people’s health status, automated chest X-ray systems, virus strain analysis, and smart systems that utilize artificial intelligence and big data.
For example, in the first half of this year, Taiwan used innovative technologies to prevent community spread by establishing a database for isolated quarantine inspectors, constructing healthcare facilities and adopting a geofencing system.
The Central Epidemic Command Center worked with HTC’s healthcare division DeepQ and the Line messaging app, and in April launched a chatbot on Line called the “Disease Containment Expert” to provide information and care services to people in home quarantine.
The government also employed a location-based alert system that used information from cell towers to provide firsthand information on COVID-19 prevention.
Although innovative technologies have kept life normal, their active promotion by the government, plus fear of the virus’ spread, has caused people to neglect the potential risks and social inequality that come from their use, and the public has allowed the government to monitor and control their daily life with surveillance technology.
For example, the Israeli parliament last month allowed COVID-19 patients to be traced and monitored from their mobile phones, using surveillance technology from the Israeli security agency Shin Bet.
This measure, which uses anti-terror techniques for disease prevention, has raised serious concerns from national and international privacy groups.
Interestingly, a surveillance policy that seriously invades their privacy shows no sign of reducing Israelis’ confidence in their government and military’s ability to manage COVID-19 prevention.
Although this might be because Israelis have long endured surveillance at the hand of intelligence agencies, their acquiescence to the government’s decision to allow virus prevention technology to interfere with their daily lives is undeniably the main reason that such an invasion of privacy was permitted.
While surveillance technology might infringe on privacy, surveillance technology that is overly transparent sparks other concerns.
Following COVID-19’s appearance, the South Korean government took the astonishing strategy of tracking virus patients’ daily activities — such as having lunch in restaurants, going to movie theaters, visiting public amenities — and recording them in detail in a digital diary on the South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Web site.
A surveillance measure of “extreme transparency” effectively slows the spread of the virus, but it also allows people with bad intentions to piece together location data of confirmed patients, to speculate on their real identity, and could eventually lead to stigmatization and discrimination.
Apart from focusing on the risk of privacy invasion created by government use of surveillance technology, people should be concerned about the growing social inequality created by its use.
In the US, where the virus is widespread, privacy at home — the first place that comes to mind when thinking of private space — is at risk.
Many tech companies have been competing with each other to launch “noncontact technology,” designed to reduce the possibility of infection through physical contact.
For example, some American landlords have installed a facial recognition system called BioConnect Cares to provide touchless door security, reducing the possibility of community transmission.
However, the system collects residents’ biometrics and health data, indirectly giving landlords their tenants’ private information, which could later be used as a bargaining chip in rent negotiation.
Apparently, the system exacerbates existing inequality between landlords and tenants, and severely undermines underprivileged people’s right to housing.
Used in the political arena, technology never remains neutral. Fortunately, people still have time to prevent privacy crises created by such technologies.
The government and residents of Taiwan should make good use of any time they might have before a second wave of COVID-19 to thoroughly examine these technologies, those in use and those waiting to be adopted.
Bear in mind that what protects people is not just “impartial and all-around data.”
Taiwanese should supervise how their government implements these technologies in the name of battling a pandemic, to avoid surveillance systems becoming a normal part of everyday life.
Besides, people should at times reflect on the risk of privacy invasion caused by new technology, and the inequality issues it can create.
Chang Liang and Wu Xiao-mi are studying for their master’s degrees at National Yang-Ming University’s Institute of Science, Technology and Society.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with