捍卫数字接触者追踪:人权、韩国和Covid-19

Mark Ryan
{"title":"捍卫数字接触者追踪:人权、韩国和Covid-19","authors":"Mark Ryan","doi":"10.1108/ijpcc-07-2020-0081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe media has even been very critical of some East Asian countries’ use of digital contact-tracing to control Covid-19. For example, South Korea has been criticised for its use of privacy-infringing digital contact-tracing. However, whether their type of digital contact-tracing was unnecessarily harmful to the human rights of Korean citizens is open for debate. The purpose of this paper is to examine this criticism to see if Korea’s digital contact-tracing is ethically justifiable.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper will evaluate Korea’s digital contact-tracing through the lens of the four human rights principles to determine if their response is ethically justifiable. These four principles were originally outlined in the European Court of Human Rights, namely, necessary, proportional, scientifically valid and time-bounded (European Court of Human Rights 1950).\n\n\nFindings\nThe paper will propose that while the use of Korea’s digital contact-tracing was scientifically valid and proportionate (albeit, in need for improvements), it meets the necessity requirement, but is too vague to meet the time-boundedness requirement.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe Covid-19 pandemic has proven to be one of the worst threats to human health and the global economy in the past century. There have been many different strategies to tackle the pandemic, from somewhat laissez-faire approaches, herd immunity, to strict draconian measures. Analysis of the approaches taken in the response to the pandemic is of high scientific value and this paper is one of the first to critically engage with one of these methods – digital contact-tracing in South Korea.\n","PeriodicalId":210948,"journal":{"name":"Int. J. Pervasive Comput. Commun.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In defence of digital contact-tracing: human rights, South Korea and Covid-19\",\"authors\":\"Mark Ryan\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijpcc-07-2020-0081\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe media has even been very critical of some East Asian countries’ use of digital contact-tracing to control Covid-19. For example, South Korea has been criticised for its use of privacy-infringing digital contact-tracing. However, whether their type of digital contact-tracing was unnecessarily harmful to the human rights of Korean citizens is open for debate. The purpose of this paper is to examine this criticism to see if Korea’s digital contact-tracing is ethically justifiable.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis paper will evaluate Korea’s digital contact-tracing through the lens of the four human rights principles to determine if their response is ethically justifiable. These four principles were originally outlined in the European Court of Human Rights, namely, necessary, proportional, scientifically valid and time-bounded (European Court of Human Rights 1950).\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe paper will propose that while the use of Korea’s digital contact-tracing was scientifically valid and proportionate (albeit, in need for improvements), it meets the necessity requirement, but is too vague to meet the time-boundedness requirement.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe Covid-19 pandemic has proven to be one of the worst threats to human health and the global economy in the past century. There have been many different strategies to tackle the pandemic, from somewhat laissez-faire approaches, herd immunity, to strict draconian measures. Analysis of the approaches taken in the response to the pandemic is of high scientific value and this paper is one of the first to critically engage with one of these methods – digital contact-tracing in South Korea.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":210948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Int. J. Pervasive Comput. Commun.\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Int. J. Pervasive Comput. Commun.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpcc-07-2020-0081\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Int. J. Pervasive Comput. Commun.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpcc-07-2020-0081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

媒体甚至对一些东亚国家使用数字接触者追踪技术来控制Covid-19进行了非常严厉的批评。例如,韩国因使用侵犯隐私的数字接触追踪而受到批评。但是,他们的这种数字接触追踪方式是否对韩国公民的人权造成不必要的伤害,还有待讨论。本文的目的是检验这种批评,看看韩国的数字接触追踪是否在道德上是合理的。本文将通过四项人权原则来评估韩国的数字接触追踪,以确定他们的反应是否在道德上是合理的。这四项原则最初是在欧洲人权法院概述的,即必要、比例、科学有效和有时限(欧洲人权法院,1950年)。本文将提出,虽然韩国数字接触追踪的使用在科学上是有效的和相称的(尽管,需要改进),但它满足必要性要求,但过于模糊,无法满足有时限的要求。事实证明,新冠肺炎大流行是过去一个世纪以来对人类健康和全球经济最严重的威胁之一。应对这一流行病有许多不同的战略,从有些放任的做法、群体免疫到严格的严厉措施。对应对大流行所采取的方法的分析具有很高的科学价值,本文是对其中一种方法——韩国的数字接触者追踪——进行批判性研究的论文之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In defence of digital contact-tracing: human rights, South Korea and Covid-19
Purpose The media has even been very critical of some East Asian countries’ use of digital contact-tracing to control Covid-19. For example, South Korea has been criticised for its use of privacy-infringing digital contact-tracing. However, whether their type of digital contact-tracing was unnecessarily harmful to the human rights of Korean citizens is open for debate. The purpose of this paper is to examine this criticism to see if Korea’s digital contact-tracing is ethically justifiable. Design/methodology/approach This paper will evaluate Korea’s digital contact-tracing through the lens of the four human rights principles to determine if their response is ethically justifiable. These four principles were originally outlined in the European Court of Human Rights, namely, necessary, proportional, scientifically valid and time-bounded (European Court of Human Rights 1950). Findings The paper will propose that while the use of Korea’s digital contact-tracing was scientifically valid and proportionate (albeit, in need for improvements), it meets the necessity requirement, but is too vague to meet the time-boundedness requirement. Originality/value The Covid-19 pandemic has proven to be one of the worst threats to human health and the global economy in the past century. There have been many different strategies to tackle the pandemic, from somewhat laissez-faire approaches, herd immunity, to strict draconian measures. Analysis of the approaches taken in the response to the pandemic is of high scientific value and this paper is one of the first to critically engage with one of these methods – digital contact-tracing in South Korea.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信