van Basshuysen Philippe, White Lucie
Institut für Philosophie, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Im Moore 21, 30167 Hannover, Deutschland.
Ethik Med. 2021;33(3):387-400. doi: 10.1007/s00481-021-00629-y. Epub 2021 Apr 30.
In spring 2020, as much of the world was emerging from widespread "lockdowns" as an emergency measure to combat the spread of SARS-CoV‑2, there was sustained discussion about how to lift measures while preventing further waves of the virus and the need for further lockdowns. One strategy that attracted significant attention was the use of digital contact-tracing apps to quickly alert users of possible exposure to the virus, and to direct them into quarantine. The initially high expectations placed upon this strategy were not met-despite the implementation of a digital contact-tracing app in Germany, further restrictions have been placed on the general population in response to further waves of the virus. We consider how digital contact tracing might have been made more effective.
We argue that there is a conflict between collecting as little data as possible, and more effective epidemic control. In contrast to the "Corona-Warn-App" that was implemented in Germany, an app that stored more information on a central server (a so-called "centralized" app) had the potential to significantly decrease viral spread. We then look at the privacy-based arguments against the centralized storage of information, suggesting that "decentralized" systems have privacy problems of their own.
The German debate on digital contact tracing apps was quickly dominated by privacy concerns, to the detriment of other ethical factors such as enhancing potential effectiveness. Furthermore, the potential problems with privacy inherent in decentralized apps were obscured in the discussion. Once we recognize these two aspects, we can see that there is an argument to be made for preferring centralized digital contact-tracing apps.
2020年春季，世界上许多地方正从作为抗击SARS-CoV-2传播的紧急措施而实施的广泛“封锁”中解封，人们持续讨论如何在防止病毒再次爆发以及避免进一步封锁的情况下解除相关措施。一项备受关注的策略是使用数字接触者追踪应用程序，以便迅速提醒用户可能接触过病毒，并引导他们进行隔离。尽管德国实施了数字接触者追踪应用程序，但这一策略最初的高期望并未实现——面对病毒的再次爆发，普通民众仍受到了进一步限制。我们思考如何能让数字接触者追踪更有效。
我们认为，在尽可能少收集数据与更有效地控制疫情之间存在冲突。与德国实施的“新冠预警应用程序”不同，一种在中央服务器上存储更多信息的应用程序（即所谓的“集中式”应用程序）有可能显著减少病毒传播。然后，我们审视基于隐私对信息集中存储的反对观点，指出“去中心化”系统本身也存在隐私问题。
德国关于数字接触者追踪应用程序的讨论很快被隐私问题主导，这对其他伦理因素（如提高潜在有效性）不利。此外，去中心化应用程序中固有的潜在隐私问题在讨论中被忽视了。一旦我们认识到这两个方面，就可以看出支持使用集中式数字接触者追踪应用程序是有道理的。
