This infamous maxim from George Orwell’s 1984 is often expressed in a sardonic manner to describe how figures of authority have increasing access to personal information and how this data is used to control and influence our thoughts and actions. Whilst this may sound alarmist, the management of the COVID-19 pandemic by various states has proven that increased, and often invasive surveillance, is not just a fictional notion.
Over the past three months, states have grappled with the crystallising reality that a drastic reconstruction is required to control this pandemic. The gravity of the situation has necessitated a broadening of government powers, which might be justified as standard practice amidst a global crisis. However, what is questionable is the insistence by democratic and authoritarian states alike that increasing surveillance is a necessity to control and limit the spread of the virus. In what seems like a reflex response to a rapidly developing situation, many states have introduced apps and monitoring programs with a view to identifying those who may be infected and to enforce lockdowns that may be operating in the area.
Background and Liberal Theory
Approximately 25 countries have adopted surveillance measures with varying levels of intrusiveness, to ostensibly assist with controlling the virus.
The model used by Taiwan could possibly be categorised as a more extreme form of surveillance, which utilises mobile data to track when individuals who are supposed to be quarantined leave their house, prompting a visit from authorities. On the opposite side of the scale, Austria is using anonymised data to map how many people are congregating in various locations.
The Australian government in the process of developing and rolling out an app which would use data and Bluetooth functions on mobile phones, to allow authorities to trace individuals who have been in close contact with people confirmed with COVID-19. Initially, this was subject to a high degree of controversy given the Deputy Chief Health Officer’s statement implying that the app would transition from voluntary to mandatory use, however Prime Minister Scott Morrison later confirmed that downloading the app would not be mandatory.
Australia has largely been inspired by the Singaporean model, which was previously lauded as highly successful. Yet nevertheless, any form of data tracking automatically provokes privacy concerns, as well as fears of potential abuses associated with data retention by third parties and governments. Singapore also serves as a caution against the presumption that surveillance will necessarily result in a reduction of the health crisis, manifested in the second-wave of cases which occurred.
Ron Deibert, the head of the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, considers the COVID-19 pandemic as having created an atmosphere simulating “9/11 on steroids”. Furthermore, he emphasises that “the lack of sunset clauses could establish what many people are describing as the new normal”. This observation is particularly startling as whilst extended government powers may be acceptable during periods of emergency, exercising an indefinite period of unbridled power over privacy may offer the potential for serious breaches of human rights. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to limit the incidence of this.
Scott Burchill, in the book Theories of International Relations, expresses that the liberal school of thought has “a normative commitment to human rights, believing that certain values and standards should be universally applied” (p.70). Liberal proponents would likely maintain that the current ethos of technological surveillance would be an affront to the notion of individual privacy, which ought to be subject to universality. Individual privacy, however, may be incongruous with the national interests of certain, especially authoritarian states, and the liberal position would be criticised for the fact that “their conceptions of democracy and human rights are culturally specific and ethnocentric” (p.71). Nevertheless, when considering the potential ramifications of high surveillance, particularly severe breaches of human rights against minority groups, it is questionable as to whether cultural and ethnic demarcations ought to be drawn.
The implications for historical instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), which both assert a right to privacy (Articles 12 and 17 respectively), is shrouded in uncertainty. Arguably, these instruments are merely aspirational and idealistic expressions of rights that are ultimately unenforceable, however the concepts vest, at the very least, a moral duty in governments to not arbitrarily exercise power to the detriment of individual privacy.
Misinformation, Multinationals and Masts
Incidental to the COVID-19 crisis is the unprecedented spread of misinformation, or ‘fake news’. Widely-used platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp invoke the potential to rapidly disseminate large amounts of information, which is enormously beneficial, but can prove problematic when harmful misstatements are posted and reposted thousands of times, causing individuals to act malignantly or irrationally.
For example, since the beginning of April, conspiracies and falsehoods that link 5G networks to circulating the virus have incited the vandalism and destruction of several phone masts and communications infrastructure in Britain and the Netherlands, causing significant interruptions during a critical period. In India, viral hashtags and posts falsely claiming that Muslims were responsible for the pandemic led to a spate of violent attacks against the minority community.
There would likely be unanimous agreement on the proposition that harmful and misleading content about the virus ought to be controlled, but opinions would diverge on the question as to how.
WhatsApp, a subsidiary of Facebook, has especially been a platform through which the sharing of misreports about the virus has been rampant. In a bid to reduce this, the messaging app has sought to impose a limit on message forwarding, in which a message forwarded more than five times can only be sent on to a single chat at a time. This is particularly relevant to India, which has 400 million WhatsApp users. It was recently reported that approximately 100 people had been arrested in India for disseminating falsities surrounding COVID-19. Furthermore, in the state of Maharashtra, orders have been passed compelling any information on COVID-19 be approved by the government before it is promulgated.
Not all forms of censorship are objectionable; indeed, some are necessary, desirable even, to prevent society from lapsing into a state of anarchy. This is certainly no call to get out the tinfoil hats, but it is slightly disconcerting when a major multinational corporation that owns two of the most widely used online platforms places limitations on content and expression, and in a way, dictates the opinion to be held. Furthermore, for a democratic state to enforce arrests against perpetrators circulating uncorroborated reports is deeply concerning particularly when several of the arrests appear to be politically motivated. As put by Rasmus Nielsen, Director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University:
“Extraordinary times absolutely call for extraordinary measures, but those measures should be positive investments in independent and credible information, not steps that will do little or nothing to stop misinformation while doing great collateral damage to fundamental rights.”
As such, the importance of finding a proper balance between controlling and limiting the spread of misinformation, whilst not enacting draconian censorship-like methods to do so, is of utmost importance.
Whilst we are, at least domestically, in the preliminary stages of a nationwide technological surveillance campaign, purportedly to reduce COVID-19 numbers and limit the spread of distortions of truth, it would be prudent to exercise vigilance and caution, in regard to both issues. Fundamental human rights are at stake, and, cliché notwithstanding, better safe than sorry; lest we find ourselves caught up in an Orwellian dystopia.
