| Popis |
The paper examines these technologies and their privacy implications from the vantage point of temporal distance, providing an analysis that extends beyond COVID-19 to future public health emergencies. The research addresses the question: How do different phases of an ongoing contagion affect the proportionality assessment of various technological interventions? We demonstrate that identical technologies may yield different proportionality outcomes depending on the specific phase of a public health emergency—an observation with implications for legal assessment across various crisis scenarios. The proposed paper presents two frameworks with application beyond COVID-19. First, we identify four distinct phases in the progression of contagious disease events: (1) onset of the agent, (2) localised spread, (3) non-localised spread, and (4) return to normal. Second, we establish a taxonomy of technological interventions categorized by purpose: (1) contact tracing (with variants using Bluetooth, GNSS, telecommunication networks, and other data collection methods), (2) status certificates, (3) contactless services, (4) public information and education, and (5) surveillance and enforcement measures (with variations using (i) non-anonymised traffic and location data, (ii) anonymised traffic and location data, (iii) mobile apps, (iv) other means of surveillance (e.g. wristbands/bracelets), (v) unmanned aerial vehicles, and (vi) CCTV systems). This interdisciplinary framework connects technological capabilities, legal principles, and public health needs and enable structured analysis of how proportionality assessments shift across different pandemic phases. The proposed paper proceeds systematically, beginning with an introduction of the research question and methodology. We then detail our findings on technological tools deployed during the pandemic, establishing our empirically derived taxonomy. Following this, we present the four-phase model of pandemic progression, analysing the effectiveness of technologies within each phase. We then examine the privacy implications of these technologies, grounding our discussion in European legal frameworks, particularly focusing on how the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU have approached the "essence" of fundamental rights. The core analytical section evaluates how the proportionality of technological interventions varies across different pandemic phases, offering concrete examples of where the same technology might be proportionate in one phase but disproportionate in another. Where applicable, our analysis of proportionality will incorporate relevant court decisions from national and supranational courts that have evaluated the legality of various technological interventions, including case law from the years after the end of the pandemic.
|
