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

How to Balance Governance Efficiency and Privacy Protection? A Textual Analysis of the Privacy Policies of the COVID-19 Contact-Tracing App in China and Singapore

Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews (RGC: 21, 22, 62)21_Publication in refereed journalpeer-review

View graph of relations

Author(s)

Related Research Unit(s)

Detail(s)

Original languageChinese (Traditional)
Article number7
Pages (from-to)113-143
Journal / PublicationInternational Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine
Volume18
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2020

Abstract

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 represented by China’s “Health Code” and Singapore’s “TraceTogether”. How to balance the relationship between efficiency and privacy ethics in data governance has become a common problem faced by countries using digital tracing tools to control the pandemic. The laws of both countries stipulate that before collecting personal information, the organizations or institutions must clearly inform individuals about the types of personal information collected, the rules for the use of personal information; and obtain the authorized consent from individuals. This article analyzes the content of the privacy policies of HealthCode in China and TraceTogether in Singapore, and identifies five potential problems in the Chinese HealthCode’s privacy policies: wide personal information collection, multiple processing purposes, ambiguous storage time, ambiguous privacy policy content, and ineffectiveness of informed consent, even though HealthCode has been an efficient tool to fight against the pandemic. Singapore’s TraceTogether has better followed the principles of minimum information collection, limited information processing purpose, minimum information storage time, openness and transparency of privacy policies, and informed consent. These two models of using big data to fight against the pandemic in China and Singapore suggest that data governance needs to reconcile public interests and individual rights, and to balance governance efficiency and data ethics.

Research Area(s)

  • Data Governance, Data Ethics, COVID-19, Privacy Policy, HealthCode, TraceTogether, China, Singapore, 數據倫理, 新冠疫情, 隱私政策, 健康碼, 數據治理, 中國, 新加坡, Big Data Governance, Data Surveillance, BIG DATA SURVEILLANCE

Bibliographic Note

Information for this record is supplemented by the author(s) concerned.