Public acceptance of privacy-encroaching policies to address the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
25
08
2020
accepted:
06
01
2021
entrez:
22
1
2021
pubmed:
23
1
2021
medline:
3
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The nature of the COVID-19 pandemic may require governments to use privacy-encroaching technologies to help contain its spread. One technology involves co-location tracking through mobile Wi-Fi, GPS, and Bluetooth to permit health agencies to monitor people's contact with each other, thereby triggering targeted social-distancing when a person turns out to be infected. The effectiveness of tracking relies on the willingness of the population to support such privacy encroaching measures. We report the results of two large surveys in the United Kingdom, conducted during the peak of the pandemic, that probe people's attitudes towards various tracking technologies. The results show that by and large there is widespread acceptance for co-location tracking. Acceptance increases when the measures are explicitly time-limited and come with opt-out clauses or other assurances of privacy. Another possible future technology to control the pandemic involves "immunity passports", which could be issued to people who carry antibodies for the COVID-19 virus, potentially implying that they are immune and therefore unable to spread the virus to other people. Immunity passports have been considered as a potential future step to manage the pandemic. We probe people's attitudes towards immunity passports and find considerable support overall, although around 20% of the public strongly oppose passports.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33481877
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245740
pii: PONE-D-20-26680
pmc: PMC7822290
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0245740Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 11;15(9):e0238973
pubmed: 32915908
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Jul;4(7):677-687
pubmed: 32581299
J Infect Dis. 2020 Aug 4;222(5):715-718
pubmed: 32582943
JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2243-2244
pubmed: 32374358
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 9;383(2):102-104
pubmed: 32272003
Sci Adv. 2020 Jun 05;6(23):eabc0764
pubmed: 32548274
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):379-381
pubmed: 32439992
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Nov 6;3(1):146
pubmed: 33299071
Health Policy. 2019 Jun;123(6):564-571
pubmed: 30961905
Science. 2015 Jan 30;347(6221):509-14
pubmed: 25635091
JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2241-2242
pubmed: 32374357
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 02;8(10):e75637
pubmed: 24098391