{"title":"如何平衡治理效率與隱私保護?中國和新加坡新冠病毒接觸者追蹤應用程式隱私政策的文本分析","authors":"Bian Xiong, Fen Lin","doi":"10.24112/ijccpm.181691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.新冠病毒疫情催生了以中國的“健康碼”和新加坡的“TraceTogether”為代表的接觸者追蹤應用程式在全球的應用和擴散。如何利用人工智慧科技,在資料治理中平衡效率與隱私倫理的闢係,成為使用數位追蹤工具進行疫情治理的國家共同面對的難題。兩國法律都規定,在收集個人資訊前必須向個人資訊主體明確告知所收集的個人資訊類型、使用個人資訊的規則,並獲得個人資訊主體的授權同意。本文通過對“健康碼”和“TraceTogether”隱私政策的對比分析發現,在應用 上,中國健康碼的使用有效幫助防控疫情,但是收集的個人資訊範園廣、處理目的多、存儲時間不明確、隱私政策内容較含糊、知情同意流於形式。新加坡的“TraceTogether”則更好地遵守了資訊收集最少夠用、資訊處理目的限定、資訊存儲時間最小化、隱私政策公開透明、知情同意等原則。中國和新加坡兩種利用資料抗疫的糢式表明,風險社會裡的資料治理需要進一步調和公共利益與個人權利,平衡治理效率和資料倫理的邊界。The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned the spread of contact-tracing applications such as China's “Health Code” and Singapore’s “TraceTogether.” Balancing efficiency and privacy ethics in data governance has become a common problem faced by all countries using digital tracing tools to control the pandemic. The laws of both China and Singapore stipulate that prior to collecting personal information, organizations and institutions must clearly inform individuals about the types of personal information collected and the rules for the use of personal information, and must obtain authorized user consent. This article analyzes the privacy policies of Health Code in China and TraceTogether in Singapore and identifies five potential problems in Health Code’s privacy policies: the broad collection of personal information, multiple processing purposes, indeterminate storage time, ambiguous privacy policy content, and the ineffectiveness of informed consent, although Health Code has been deemed an efficient tool to fight against the pandemic. Singapore’s TraceTogether adheres to the principles of minimum information collection, limited information processing purposes, minimum duration of information storage, openness and transparency of privacy policies, and informed consent. These two models for using big data in the fight against the pandemic in China and Singapore suggest that data governance needs to reconcile public interests and individual rights, and should balance governance efficiency and data ethics.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 69 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.","PeriodicalId":41284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24112/ijccpm.181691","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.新冠病毒疫情催生了以中國的“健康碼”和新加坡的“TraceTogether”為代表的接觸者追蹤應用程式在全球的應用和擴散。如何利用人工智慧科技,在資料治理中平衡效率與隱私倫理的闢係,成為使用數位追蹤工具進行疫情治理的國家共同面對的難題。兩國法律都規定,在收集個人資訊前必須向個人資訊主體明確告知所收集的個人資訊類型、使用個人資訊的規則,並獲得個人資訊主體的授權同意。本文通過對“健康碼”和“TraceTogether”隱私政策的對比分析發現,在應用 上,中國健康碼的使用有效幫助防控疫情,但是收集的個人資訊範園廣、處理目的多、存儲時間不明確、隱私政策内容較含糊、知情同意流於形式。新加坡的“TraceTogether”則更好地遵守了資訊收集最少夠用、資訊處理目的限定、資訊存儲時間最小化、隱私政策公開透明、知情同意等原則。中國和新加坡兩種利用資料抗疫的糢式表明,風險社會裡的資料治理需要進一步調和公共利益與個人權利,平衡治理效率和資料倫理的邊界。The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned the spread of contact-tracing applications such as China's “Health Code” and Singapore’s “TraceTogether.” Balancing efficiency and privacy ethics in data governance has become a common problem faced by all countries using digital tracing tools to control the pandemic. The laws of both China and Singapore stipulate that prior to collecting personal information, organizations and institutions must clearly inform individuals about the types of personal information collected and the rules for the use of personal information, and must obtain authorized user consent. This article analyzes the privacy policies of Health Code in China and TraceTogether in Singapore and identifies five potential problems in Health Code’s privacy policies: the broad collection of personal information, multiple processing purposes, indeterminate storage time, ambiguous privacy policy content, and the ineffectiveness of informed consent, although Health Code has been deemed an efficient tool to fight against the pandemic. Singapore’s TraceTogether adheres to the principles of minimum information collection, limited information processing purposes, minimum duration of information storage, openness and transparency of privacy policies, and informed consent. These two models for using big data in the fight against the pandemic in China and Singapore suggest that data governance needs to reconcile public interests and individual rights, and should balance governance efficiency and data ethics.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 69 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.新冠病毒疫情催生了以中国的“健康码”和新加坡的“TraceTogether”为代表的接触者追踪应用程式在全球的应用和扩散。如何利用人工智慧科技,在资料治理中平衡效率与隐私伦理的辟系,成为使用数位追踪工具进行疫情治理的国家共同面对的难题。两国法律都规定,在收集个人资讯前必须向个人资讯主体明确告知所收集的个人资讯类型、使用个人资讯的规则,并获得个人资讯主体的授权同意。本文通过对“健康码”和“TraceTogether”隐私政策的对比分析发现,在应用 上,中国健康码的使用有效帮助防控疫情,但是收集的个人资讯范园广、处理目的多、存储时间不明确、隐私政策内容较含糊、知情同意流于形式。新加坡的“TraceTogether”则更好地遵守了资讯收集最少够用、资讯处理目的限定、资讯存储时间最小化、隐私政策公开透明、知情同意等原则。中国和新加坡两种利用资料抗疫的糢式表明,风险社会里的资料治理需要进一步调和公共利益与个人权利,平衡治理效率和资料伦理的边界。The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned the spread of contact-tracing applications such as China's “Health Code” and Singapore’s “TraceTogether.” Balancing efficiency and privacy ethics in data governance has become a common problem faced by all countries using digital tracing tools to control the pandemic. The laws of both China and Singapore stipulate that prior to collecting personal information, organizations and institutions must clearly inform individuals about the types of personal information collected and the rules for the use of personal information, and must obtain authorized user consent. This article analyzes the privacy policies of Health Code in China and TraceTogether in Singapore and identifies five potential problems in Health Code’s privacy policies: the broad collection of personal information, multiple processing purposes, indeterminate storage time, ambiguous privacy policy content, and the ineffectiveness of informed consent, although Health Code has been deemed an efficient tool to fight against the pandemic. Singapore’s TraceTogether adheres to the principles of minimum information collection, limited information processing purposes, minimum duration of information storage, openness and transparency of privacy policies, and informed consent. These two models for using big data in the fight against the pandemic in China and Singapore suggest that data governance needs to reconcile public interests and individual rights, and should balance governance efficiency and data ethics.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 69 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.