Whether a country’s population will resist strict (technological) coronavirus measures that were issued by their governments, differs per country.
In the Russian capital of Moscow, for example, there wasn’t a lot of resistance among its residents when mayor Sergey Sobyanin rolled out an innovative system of security cameras and facial recognition applications in the past couple of years. As soon as the virus reached Moscow, however, Sobyanin’s network was all but ready for the thousands of Muscovites ignoring lockdown rules.
In South Korea, the people did not rise up to coronavirus measures, either. The drastic COVID-19 surveillance in the country appears to be a direct consequence of the subpar, passive approach to the MERS virus outbreak in 2015. Polls indicate a majority of South Koreans even supports judicial procedures against their fellow countrymen who negligently spread the virus or refuse to parttake in epidemiological studies.
At the same time, some coronavirus measures are actively opposed in France. Human rights activists spoke out against the police applying drones to monitor public spaces. And digital civil rights groups are very vocal about their criticism of the French government’s contract tracing app.
It’s highly uncertain whether governments will roll back their surveillance measures once the pandemic is over In: The Correspondent (3 September)
We’ve transformed every aspect of our lives to deal with coronavirus, and part of that has been agreeing to data collection terms from our governments that, in normal times, just wouldn’t fly.
It’s now up to governments to treat our data responsibly. But around the world, journalists are sounding the alarm bells; early warning signs indicate that the Covid-19 surveillance might outlive the virus itself.
In Tunisia, journalist Layli Foroudi shows how Covid-19 data-tracking measures have sparked flashbacks to the North African country’s Arab Spring-era surveillance state. In Peru, the country’s history of corruption and its low data literacy levels make its haphazard approach to pandemic data even more perilous. And in India, cases brought to the courts hint at an ulterior motive for the government’s contact-tracing app. In every country, the government and the people each have a different stance on personal data In: The Correspondent (12 August)
Almost anywhere in the world, governments are considering the usage of sensitive data to bring the coronavirus pandemic to a halt – or they are already doing so. Every country – and their people, as well – has a different relationship with personal data.
In Japan, for instance, public confidence in Apple and Google’s involvement with the country’s coronavirus app is high, in contrast to the government’s efforts.
In Brazil, the state governor of São Paulo is collecting personal data from all state’s citizens who possess a smartphone. He is being helped by telecommunications companies. However, there is hardly any public resistance to these measures, except from a lawyer who argued his professional privacy is corroded by the governor’s initiative.
Finally, in South Africa, the foremost question is how effective a coronavirus app could be in the first place, as about half of the country’s population does not have a smartphone or internet access. The government was briefly considering a QR code on paper as an alternative, but South Africans still need the internet to print it. Furthermore, the developer of the national coronavirus app (Covi-ID) said they did not receive any assistance from the national Department of Health. Telecom companies have been passing information to governments for years. Since the pandemic, they’ve been working together even more closely In: The Correspondent (5 August)
The telecom industry laid the groundwork for the massive data collection companies by tech giants like Google and Facebook. They underpin wifi and 4G (now 5G) coverage, which makes tracking our every move possible. And they’ve been passing data to governments for years.
Ever since the coronavirus pandemic, telecom firms and governments have been working together even more closely, ostensibly in the name of public health. And unlike Big Tech, it’s all happening without public scrutiny. How the US, a country with 1/25 of the world’s population ended up with 25% of worldwide coronavirus deaths In: The Atlantic (4 August)
The coronavirus has humbled and humiliated the US, the most powerful country in the world. Despite having just 4% of the world’s population, the US has a quarter of confirmed Covid-19 cases and deaths. Why did this happen to a country with vast resources and scientific expertise?
Ed Yong spoke to 100 experts for this epic 8,000-word piece and found that almost every error was predictable and preventable. Instead of preparing the US for the pandemic, Trump closed the borders, but in practice, travel bans are ineffective ways to halt the spread of a virus. Also, tests were in short supply.
And the indoor spaces where US Americans spend 87% of their time became super-spreading events. Overcrowded prisons and nursing homes were hardest hit. Inside hospitals, the virus met a costly but ineffective healthcare system. It’s clear that social distancing worked, but it was hampered by Trump’s inconsistent messaging. "Recovery is possible," Yong writes, "but it demands radical introspection. Black Lives Matter protesters aren’t being tracked with Covid-19 surveillance tech. Not yet In: The Correspondent (3 June)
When I heard a public official in the US say they had begun using "contact tracing”, I feared it was the start of contact-tracing Covid-19 technology being used to track protesters. In this case, he was describing a policing process, but what stops my fear from it coming true is not legal protection, but just a lack of infrastructure.
In many places, automated contact-tracing apps are being used to collect all kinds of sensitive data in the name of public health. And building this kind of technology with few protections in place will always result in human rights abuses.
That’s why it’s important to ensure that data is not misused. The best way to achieve this is by data minimisation (collecting only what you absolutely need) and data retention (deleting data as soon as it’s no longer useful). These apps must be built with privacy by design, so they’re not weaponised against the most vulnerable. Iceland is free of coronavirus after 10 deaths – probably because they began taking the virus seriously in January In: New Yorker (1 June)
All the way back in January, Iceland was already organising emergency meetings about coronavirus. The country’s director of emergency management, its chief epidemiologist and its director of health held daily briefings for months about the spread of the virus across the island, the worries of children, and the emergence of disinformation. Politicians took a step back so the scientists could take the lead.
Iceland is one of the few European countries now free of coronavirus cases. The country had 1,800 infections and 10 deaths – which doesn’t sound very alarming, but it was for a population of only 365,000. The Icelanders did not undergo an actual lockdown, but infected patients were frequently called by healthcare services to monitor their situation.
What was also useful was that the government could use the infrastructure of the genetic database deCODE. Normally, their data are meant for Icelanders who want to know whether they are related (certainly a possibility with a smaller population than Cleveland or New Orleans), but now, scientists were constantly sequencing the DNA strains of the virus and checking coronavirus tests. Contact-tracing apps are not the solution to stop coronavirus. Governments are slowly starting to realise that In: The Correspondent (1 June)
Two months ago, pretty much every government in the world was thinking about apps to track coronavirus patients and new infections. Since then, the enthusiasm has largely vanished. More and more countries have stopped viewing contact-tracing apps as the ultimate solution, but rather as a useful tool next to old-school phone calls and contact lists.
However, about 80 apps are still in development. There are several risks and problems with contact-tracing apps. For example, they only work if a considerable part of a population installs and uses them. And if governments force their people to do this, it would amount to a massive intrusion of privacy. On top of that, not everyone possesses a smartphone that supports such an app, so some people will always be left out.
Another problem is the underlying technology. Most apps use Bluetooth, GPS or QR codes, or a combination of those. All these methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. Bluetooth is not always accurate when registering distances between phones; GPS doesn’t work properly in areas with high-rise buildings; and QR codes are predominantly meant for entrances of offices and stores, not for public spaces. Vietnam has zero recorded coronavirus deaths yet, but it came at a price of harsh measures In: OneZero (29 May)
Vietnam has appeared very successful in halting the spread of the coronavirus within its borders. So far, the country has reported just several hundred infections and no recorded deaths. But the methods that were used to achieve this were harsh: a combination of censorship, quick action, grand-scale use of personal data, thorough distribution of public information, and an army of medical personnel managed to detect and isolate virtually every infected person in an early stage. Why coronavirus hasn’t swept Africa off its feet yet In: New Yorker (15 May)
Relatively few coronavirus infections have so far been reported in Africa. However, it’s too early to be optimistic, several doctors warn in this story. Just like in Europe, things could still go wrong very quickly in Africa.
Africa’s experience with earlier virus outbreaks, such as Ebola, may have helped slow the spread. Knowledge from previous epidemics probably made medical personnel quickly realise what they had to do. Next to that, temperatures in Africa tend to be high (mostly a no-go for the coronavirus), the population is relatively young (which makes people less vulnerable in general), and governments cracked down with harsh measures to contain the virus – even too harsh in some cases. Which country took the worst measures? We don’t know yet, but the US is probably one of them In: Financial Times (14 May)
It will not be easy to figure out which governments have responded adequately to the coronavirus. But Donald Trump, who doesn’t believe in strong government, seems like a guarantee for policy failure. First, he disbanded the department whose mission was to combat virus outbreaks. Second, he put a loyalist in charge at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Third, he trusted the judgement of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who advised against stressing the importance of testing, which would have led to a crash in the stock markets.
Then there is Trump’s childish belief in spectacularly simple solutions for inherently complex problems; his completely contradictory recommendations in a matter of days; and his decision to freeze the US’s financial contribution to the World Health Organization. Of course, every other (competent) president would have been surprised by the virus as well, despite all the early warnings.
But when the dust has settled later on, and an independent commission will review the government’s policies during the pandemic, the US might very well be considered one of the countries that have responded to the virus in the worst possible way. In virus-hit New York, Big Tech grabs the opportunity to privatise the lives of millions In: The Intercept (8 May)
Canadian author Naomi Klein has updated her concept of the shock doctrine for our new pandemic world. The idea that people in positions of power take advantage of disasters to their own benefit isn’t new, but Klein has built a career out of exposing how exactly they go about it.
New York has been the US state hardest hit by the coronavirus. Its governor, Andrew Cuomo, has embarked on a plan to digitise and privatise almost every aspect of life – and is partnering with big tech companies to make it happen. According to Klein, "it’s a future in which our homes are never again exclusively personal spaces". How China erased critical and worried messages about coronavirus from the internet In: Wired (1 May)
China is proud of implementing a strict lockdown in Wuhan, the city where the coronavirus pandemic spread from. But in the same timeframe, the country censored lots of online posts from journalists and citizens who were worried about the outbreak, as a two-and-a-half month analysis of deleted publications by Wired concludes.
Interviews with scientists who sounded the alarm about the lack of medical supplies were censored, as well as a citizen initiative that wanted to count how many Chinese people died of coronavirus without hospital admission. Even messages containing sadness and excerpts on civil liberties from the Chinese Constitution and the national anthem didn’t make it past censorship.
Despite the creativity among Chinese internet users, Wired shows the effectiveness of Chinese censorship: posts in ancient Chinese script, morse code, QR codes and even the fictitious Klingon language from Star Trek disappeared from the internet. Covid-19 surveillance tech explained: six ways governments are monitoring the virus – and you In: The Correspondent (30 April)
Desperate to control the spread of the coronavirus and lift restrictions, governments around the world are turning to technology. Here are the six most important technologies being used and the risks and limitations of each. But we still need your help to get the global picture. How Sweden has been able to adopt a completely different strategy to counter the pandemic In: Behavioural Public Policy (23 April)
Many countries are prohibiting their people from spending any time outdoors unless strictly necessary. Sweden has chosen not to do so. Why not? According to the Swedish constitution, the government of this Scandinavian country is not allowed to restrict its citizens’ freedom of movement nationwide. Sweden is one of the few countries that is unable to declare a state of emergency in peacetime.
Another distinctive feature that the rest of the world finds remarkable is that Swedish coronavirus policies are not formulated and announced by politicians, but by scientists. The ministries in Sweden employ very few politically affiliated public administrators; instead, most civil servants can contribute substantive knowledge.
Finally, Sweden has opted for an exceptional lack of prohibitions. The scientists who are making the decisions are convinced that forcing people to stay indoors for an extended period will not be sufficiently effective at this stage of the pandemic. They prefer not to go beyond recommendations. And although many cafes and shops across Sweden are still open, most public spaces are in fact deserted. How the balance of power is shifting between Europe, China and the US In: openDemocracy (16 April)
While President Trump continues to call coronavirus the "Chinese virus" and cries for "reparations" from the Chinese are rising from his political entourage, China is conducting a charm offensive in Europe and Africa by shipping in millions of face masks and test kits. These two continents are caught between the US financial system in the west and its Chinese counterpart in the east, writes economics journalist Laurie Macfarlane.
The Chinese economy definitely seems to be outpacing the US economy in the 21st century. And China holds a trump card, as it were: the country holds one trillion dollars in US government bonds. If China sold all those bonds in one go, it could throw the US economy into complete disarray. On the other hand, the dollar is still the only serious investment worldwide, in terms of foreign currency.
Macfarlane argues that eurobonds – a method of spreading the debt burden over EU countries during the coronavirus – is one of the few ways for Europe to maintain the euro as a major currency worldwide. If that proves impossible, then the EU seems to be at the mercy of omniscient tech companies like Google, Apple and Amazon in the west, and an ever-watchful surveillance state in the east that is buying up more and more infrastructure in other regions. Why outlawing fake news is not the solution to removing disinformation regarding coronavirus In: Undark (3 April)
Fake news regarding the coronavirus has been spreading quickly – producing much damage. For example, in South Africa, one story went that African blood and black skin prevented the virus infection – which is blatantly false. The South African government took action and made it a criminal offense to spread disinformation about the disease. But how dangerous is that, asks Sarah Wild in this story for Undark magazine.
For now, it is unclear how the government will be able to discern purposefully fake information from accidental mistakes – and whether it may end up using it to silence media that may be critical of its course of action. So far, that has not happened in South Africa. What’s certain is that the HIV pandemic has taught South Africa about the importance of reliable, timely information. Now the question remains as to whether the government can actually monitor the information flow successfully. The ‘war on disease’ has been waged for 700 years In: Boston Review (3 April)
For 700 years, pandemics have prompted stringent security measures that otherwise only occur during wartime. In 14th-century Venice and Florence, diplomats and merchants had to show medical passports to pass through checkpoints. In the 19th century, European governments sent health inspectors to Egypt and Turkey to check ships for diseases.
A century and a half ago, the liberal German city of Hamburg was taken over by the central government after confirmation of a cholera outbreak. And in 2014, President Obama deployed the famous 101st Airborne Division to fight Ebola in Africa.
It’s logical for countries to take a militaristic approach to the virus, researcher Alex de Waal writes in this essay for the Boston Review. A rapid, efficient response is absolutely vital in fighting a disease that spreads exponentially. But it’s just as important to get the people involved in containing a pandemic, instead of portraying them as backward (as the British colonials did in India circa 1900), illiterate (in places like 17th-century London) or irrelevant (as happened during the Aids epidemic in the US in the 1980) We failed to fix a broken system after the 2008 financial crisis. Let’s not make the same mistake now In: The Correspondent (1 April)
Just after the 2008 financial crisis, it was unthinkable that the global financial system would stay the same. But human behaviour is to first minimise a problem, then apply short-term solutions. The result? A decade later, banks had clawed back much of their influence – and not much had changed.
The same pattern is happening with the coronavirus pandemic: the UK and the US initially failed to grasp its severity. But short-term solutions just won’t cut it this time. We must act urgently to fundamentally reform society. We need universal basic income, universal sick pay for anyone employed, and an international organisation for a rapid response to future pandemics. In the US, social distancing has become a political tug-of-war In: The Atlantic (30 March)
For a brief time, social distancing was one part of US American life that wasn’t polarised along party lines. But inconsistent messages from Trump about the severity of the pandemic and concerns about the economy are turning social distancing into a political act. Conservative news outlets in the US increasingly broadcast pundits’ views that the government is overreaching by forcing businesses to close.
Experts are almost united in the belief that social distancing is essential to containing the spread of the coronavirus, so politicising the act could have dangerous repercussions. But that’s already started: Republicans are much less concerned about the virus than Democrats, and Trump won 23 of the 25 US states where people have reduced travel the least. Will governments roll back their drastic measures when the pandemic ends? In: Financial Times (20 March)
The coronavirus crisis forces the world to face two dilemmas, writes historian Yuval Noah Harari in the Financial Times. The first fight will be about the privacy of citizens. The second is about global cooperation.
In response to the coronavirus, governments will want to collect as much biometric data as possible from their citizens to find out how the disease is spreading. Countries such as China and Israel are now deploying surveillance technology with complete disregard for the privacy of their people, but the bigger question is whether government authorities will roll back those measures once the pandemic ends.
Beyond that, countries need to embrace global solidarity: exchange medical information and equipment, and reach agreements about allowing some movement by essential travellers from specific professions (doctors, scientists, journalists and so on). But which country is going to take the lead, if the US is closing its borders and trying to obtain a monopoly on pharmaceutical companies?
Guide
Coronavirus in context
The coronavirus pandemic will have far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. We want to help you understand developments around the world by providing context for the news in a carefully considered, factual and constructive way. This guide gives you the most important insights to help you understand the coronavirus pandemic.