ABSTRACT
Recently, the concept of sovereignty in the digital has attracted much attention. Several publications dealing with this concept assume that it can best be described as a network of different, overlapping exercises of power. Nevertheless, there is a need for further research on how exactly sovereignty in the digital can be understood. In order to contribute to a better understanding of this concept, I illustrate its complex structure using contact tracing apps as a paradigmatic example. I conduct a narrative review to show what sovereignty looks like in the context of these apps. In the context of digital contact tracing apps, sovereignty is best understood as a complex network of three actors-nations, (big tech) companies, and individuals-that exercise various forms of power against or on behalf of each other to claim sovereignty for themselves and to either weaken or strengthen the sovereignty claims of other actors. Since large parts of the results can be generalized from the particular context of contact tracing apps, they contribute to a better overall understanding of the concept of sovereignty in digital. This might, in turn, be helpful for discussions about this technology as well as about the regulation and governance of the digital in general.
ABSTRACT
Background In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is much discussion about contact tracing apps, their use to contain the spread of the virus as well as the ethical, legal, and social aspects of their development, implementation, acceptance, and use. In these discussions, authors frequently mention “solidarity” when making key points in arguments. At the same time, authors rarely specify how they understand “solidarity”. This lack of specification about how they understand “solidarity” can lead to misunderstandings in discussions. Objective To prevent such misunderstandings, it is important to specify how one understands “solidarity” when mentioning it in the discussions on contact tracing apps. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to elaborate how “solidarity” is understood in the context of contact tracing apps, i.e., how different authors understand “solidarity” when using it in discussions about these apps. Methods In order to find out how different authors understand “solidarity” when discussing contact tracing apps, I conduct a literature review. I collect papers from several databases, inductively work out central differences and similarities between the different uses of “solidarity”, and use them to code and analyze relevant passages. Results In the final sample, five different understandings of “solidarity” in the context of contact tracing apps can be identified. These understandings differ in how different authors (1) imagine the basic concept of solidarity, i.e., what “solidarity” refers to, (2) how they temporally relate solidarity to contact tracing apps, and (3) how they perceive the causal interactions between solidarity and contact tracing apps, i.e., the different ways in which solidarity and contact tracing apps influence each other. Conclusions The five understandings of “solidarity” in the context of contact tracing apps presented here can serve as guidance for how “solidarity” can be understood in discussions—thus contributing to a better mutual understanding and preventing communicative misunderstandings.
ABSTRACT
Background: When vaccines became first available during the Covid-19 pandemic, their demand significantly exceeded their supply. In consequence, the access to vaccines, initially, was distributed unequally. At the same time, governments started easing pandemic restrictions for vaccinated and recovered persons and restoring their freedoms since their risk of transmitting the virus is significantly reduced. Evidence: We show that restoring freedoms for vaccinated and recovered persons - while upholding restrictions for the rest of the population - is morally unfair during vaccine scarcity. Further, it may yield unintended side-effects, including perverse incentives, growing rifts in society, and the expansion of marginalization. Policy Options & Recommendations: We recommend accompanying easing for vaccinated and recovered individuals by mitigation measures for those who are neither vaccinated nor recovered. We propose, first, to temporarily lift the same restrictions for negative-tested individuals, as for vaccinated or recovered people. Second, the state must ensure broad and easy access to testing for everyone - free of charge. Conclusion: If done right, these mitigation measures create (at least temporarily) equal access to freedom for everybody - solving the moral problem of unfair access to freedoms and counteracting possible negative consequences.