Should Digital Contact Tracing Technologies be used to Control COVID-19? Perspectives from an Australian Public Deliberation.

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Health Care Analysis Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-26 DOI:10.1007/s10728-021-00441-1
Chris Degeling, Julie Hall, Jane Johnson, Roba Abbas, Shopna Bag, Gwendolyn L Gilbert
{"title":"Should Digital Contact Tracing Technologies be used to Control COVID-19? Perspectives from an Australian Public Deliberation.","authors":"Chris Degeling, Julie Hall, Jane Johnson, Roba Abbas, Shopna Bag, Gwendolyn L Gilbert","doi":"10.1007/s10728-021-00441-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mobile phone-based applications (apps) can promote faster targeted actions to control COVID-19. However, digital contact tracing systems raise concerns about data security, system effectiveness, and their potential to normalise privacy-invasive surveillance technologies. In the absence of mandates, public uptake depends on the acceptability and perceived legitimacy of using technologies that log interactions between individuals to build public health capacity. We report on six online deliberative workshops convened in New South Wales to consider the appropriateness of using the COVIDSafe app to enhance Australian contact tracing systems. All groups took the position (by majority) that the protections enacted in the app design and supporting legislation were appropriate. This support is contingent on several system attributes including: the voluntariness of the COVIDSafe app; that the system relies on proximity rather than location tracking; and, that data access is restricted to local public health practitioners undertaking contact tracing. Despite sustained scepticism in media coverage, there was an underlying willingness to trust Australian governing institutions such that in principle acceptance of the new contact tracing technology was easy to obtain. However, tensions between the need to prove system effectiveness through operational transparency and requirements for privacy protections could be limiting public uptake. Our study shows that informed citizens are willing to trade their privacy for common goods such as COVID-19 suppression. But low case numbers and cautionary public discourses can make trustworthiness difficult to establish because some will only do so when it can be demonstrated that the benefits justify the costs to individuals.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":"30 2","pages":"97-114"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8545621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-021-00441-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mobile phone-based applications (apps) can promote faster targeted actions to control COVID-19. However, digital contact tracing systems raise concerns about data security, system effectiveness, and their potential to normalise privacy-invasive surveillance technologies. In the absence of mandates, public uptake depends on the acceptability and perceived legitimacy of using technologies that log interactions between individuals to build public health capacity. We report on six online deliberative workshops convened in New South Wales to consider the appropriateness of using the COVIDSafe app to enhance Australian contact tracing systems. All groups took the position (by majority) that the protections enacted in the app design and supporting legislation were appropriate. This support is contingent on several system attributes including: the voluntariness of the COVIDSafe app; that the system relies on proximity rather than location tracking; and, that data access is restricted to local public health practitioners undertaking contact tracing. Despite sustained scepticism in media coverage, there was an underlying willingness to trust Australian governing institutions such that in principle acceptance of the new contact tracing technology was easy to obtain. However, tensions between the need to prove system effectiveness through operational transparency and requirements for privacy protections could be limiting public uptake. Our study shows that informed citizens are willing to trade their privacy for common goods such as COVID-19 suppression. But low case numbers and cautionary public discourses can make trustworthiness difficult to establish because some will only do so when it can be demonstrated that the benefits justify the costs to individuals.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
是否应使用数字接触追踪技术控制 COVID-19?来自澳大利亚公众讨论的观点。
基于手机的应用程序(App)可以促进更快地采取有针对性的行动来控制 COVID-19。然而,数字联络追踪系统在数据安全性、系统有效性及其将侵犯隐私的监控技术正常化的潜力方面引起了关注。在没有授权的情况下,公众的接受程度取决于使用记录个人之间互动的技术来建立公共卫生能力的可接受性和可感知的合法性。我们报告了在新南威尔士州召开的六次在线审议研讨会的情况,会议旨在审议使用 COVIDSafe 应用程序加强澳大利亚接触者追踪系统是否合适。所有小组(多数)都认为应用程序设计和支持立法中颁布的保护措施是适当的。这种支持取决于几个系统属性,包括:COVIDSafe 应用程序的自愿性;系统依赖于近距离追踪而非位置追踪;以及数据访问仅限于进行接触追踪的当地公共卫生从业人员。尽管媒体报道一直持怀疑态度,但人们还是愿意相信澳大利亚的管理机构,因此原则上很容易接受新的接触者追踪技术。然而,通过操作透明度证明系统有效性的需求与隐私保护要求之间的矛盾可能会限制公众的接受程度。我们的研究表明,知情公民愿意用自己的隐私来换取 COVID-19 抑制等共同利益。但是,由于案例数量较少以及公众的谨慎论调,可信度难以建立,因为只有在能够证明对个人而言收益与成本相匹配的情况下,一些人才会这样做。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
期刊最新文献
Sustainability as an Intrinsic Moral Concern for Solidaristic Health Care. Recontextualization and Imagination: The Public Health Professional and the U.S. Health Care System. Childbirth as Fault Lines: Justifications in Physician-Patient Interactions About Postnatal Rehabilitation. Ethical, Psychological and Social Un/certainties in the Face of Deemed Consent for Organ Donation in England. "I Do Not Believe We Should Disclose Everything to an Older Patient": Challenges and Ethical Concerns in Clinical Decision-Making in Old-Age Care in Ethiopia.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1