On the voluntariness of public health apps: a European case study on digital contact tracing

Q1 Social Sciences Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17579961.2023.2184137
B. Kamphorst, M. Verweij, Josephine A. W. van Zeben
{"title":"On the voluntariness of public health apps: a European case study on digital contact tracing","authors":"B. Kamphorst, M. Verweij, Josephine A. W. van Zeben","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2023.2184137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n As evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing reliance on smartphone apps such as digital contact tracing apps and vaccination passports to respond to and mitigate public health threats. In light of the European Commission's guidance, Member States typically offer such apps on a voluntary, ‘opt-in’ basis. In this paper, we question the extent to which the individual choice to use these apps – and similar future technologies – is indeed a voluntary one. By explicating ethical and legal considerations governing the choice situations surrounding the use of smartphone apps, specifically those related to the negative consequences that declining the use of these apps may have (e.g. loss of opportunities, social exclusion, stigma), we argue that the projected downsides of refusal may in effect limit the liberty to decline for certain subpopulations. To mitigate these concerns, we recommend three categories of approaches that may be employed by governments to safeguard voluntariness.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"15 1","pages":"107 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law, Innovation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2023.2184137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT As evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing reliance on smartphone apps such as digital contact tracing apps and vaccination passports to respond to and mitigate public health threats. In light of the European Commission's guidance, Member States typically offer such apps on a voluntary, ‘opt-in’ basis. In this paper, we question the extent to which the individual choice to use these apps – and similar future technologies – is indeed a voluntary one. By explicating ethical and legal considerations governing the choice situations surrounding the use of smartphone apps, specifically those related to the negative consequences that declining the use of these apps may have (e.g. loss of opportunities, social exclusion, stigma), we argue that the projected downsides of refusal may in effect limit the liberty to decline for certain subpopulations. To mitigate these concerns, we recommend three categories of approaches that may be employed by governments to safeguard voluntariness.
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
关于公共卫生应用程序的自愿性:欧洲数字接触者追踪案例研究
摘要正如新冠肺炎大流行期间所证明的那样,人们越来越依赖数字接触者追踪应用程序和疫苗接种护照等智能手机应用程序来应对和缓解公共卫生威胁。根据欧盟委员会的指导意见,成员国通常在自愿“选择加入”的基础上提供此类应用程序。在这篇论文中,我们质疑个人使用这些应用程序以及类似的未来技术的选择在多大程度上确实是自愿的。通过解释有关使用智能手机应用程序的选择情况的道德和法律考虑,特别是那些与拒绝使用这些应用程序可能产生的负面后果有关的考虑(例如失去机会、社会排斥、污名化),我们认为,拒绝的预期负面影响实际上可能会限制某些亚群体的拒绝自由。为了缓解这些担忧,我们建议政府采取三类方法来保障自愿。
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
Law, Innovation and Technology
Law, Innovation and Technology Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Stem cell research, cloning, GMOs ... How do regulations affect such emerging technologies? What impact do new technologies have on law? And can we rely on technology itself as a regulatory tool? The meeting of law and technology is rapidly becoming an increasingly significant (and controversial) topic. Law, Innovation and Technology is, however, the only journal to engage fully with it, setting an innovative and distinctive agenda for lawyers, ethicists and policy makers. Spanning ICTs, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, neurotechnologies, robotics and AI, it offers a unique forum for the highest level of reflection on this essential area.
期刊最新文献
Predictive analytics and the collective dimensions of data protection The relationship between law and technology: comparing legal responses to creators’ rights under copyright law through safe harbour for online intermediaries and generative AI technology Navigating the dichotomy of smart prisons: between surveillance and rehabilitation Ethics reviews in the European Union. Implications for the governance of scientific research in times of data science and Artificial Intelligence The EU legal framework for algorithmic recommender systems: I (don’t) know it when I see it
×
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