JUNE 14 — A wearable contact tracing device will apparently be Singapore’s next weapon in the fight against Covid-19.
The government has announced that a Bluetooth device will be distributed to every Singaporean though a timeline for the delivery hasn’t yet been specified.
The device will help identify close contacts of people who are diagnosed with Covid-19.
While contact tracing has been proven to be among the best ways to control Covid-19, many believe the idea of a wearable government-issued tracking device would be a step too far in terms of eroding the privacy of ordinary citizens.
An online petition calling for an end to the tracking device scheme has already gathered tens of thousands of signatures.
The government for its part has responded by explaining that the Bluetooth-enabled device represents perhaps the best means of contact tracing without compromising privacy excessively.
According to the government, information would be stored only on the device and not in a central database.
The contact information would only be accessed in the event an individual is found to have Covid-19.
As Bluetooth doesn’t require an internet connection or GPS, the device does not allow the government to track movement or gather additional data. It will only reveal which other people/devices the wearer has been near to.
This is actually a rather tricky dilemma. I am personally a strong believer in personal privacy.
Information on my movements, who I speak to, my personal data should ideally not be held by governments or corporations.
On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that in the modern world most of us have already ceded an enormous amount of data to Google, Apple and our telecom providers etc.
These companies can access enormous amounts of information about us including our movements and possibly even personal conversations.
It also must be admitted that these are not ordinary times.
Covid-19 is unprecedented and in the absence of a vaccine, contact tracing is the best means we have of returning to some semblance of normality.
So in this case, why not allow the government to gather this data? Many of us already share more information with private companies and in principle, the government can use various legal means to access a lot of this information via the companies.
Personally though, I still think an additional wearable device sets a troubling precedent.
While the device won’t be compulsory, the reality is that the government could easily make it so.
Also without immediately making it compulsory, the government can insist that the device is needed to access certain facilities etc making life difficult for those who choose not to wear it.
The problem really is the safeguard and conditions for its use.
If the tag is one of a smorgasbord of options — including a phone app, registering physically — and it is to be used for a set period on set conditions for i.e. for an initial 12 weeks with clear laws regulating the data it gathers, there may be a case for use.
But again is it really necessary? Many countries appear to be combatting Covid-19 without such devices.
To date no other nation or territory has mandated or even introduced a voluntary physical device for its whole population.
Physical devices are used to enforce quarantines in some places but that’s different from introducing devices for everyone in a city or nation.
Basically all over the world there is, I think, quite rightly visceral resistance to wearing a government-issued device.
Even if the device is perfectly well intentioned and the government appears to be benign, the idea is troubling. It is a slippery slope.
The truth is worldwide governments have proved to be quite fallible and any system is only as good as the weakest individuals in it.
We’ve seen data leakages all over the world including in Singapore before. Also while Bluetooth technology does seem to be relatively non-invasive, there are ways it can be used to extract location and other data.
Once the tags have been issued and used in one case, what’s to prevent them from being rolled out in future for much more controversial purposes.
For me, the negatives — privacy concerns, the poor precedent and the potential cost of the scheme — mean it should really be rolled out as an absolute last resort.
I think at present we have other options. The existing Trace Together app which is already being used by over 20 per cent of the population, QR-code-based check-ins for venues, good old physical forms, and security camera data mean we can trace movement pretty effectively.
Also, there must be some assumption that the vast majority of people will be responsible and report their movements accurately which means tracing should be possible without this wearable device.
My fear is that once privacy has been handed over, we cannot get it back.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
