The relaxation of China’s strict “zero-Covid” policy leads to an obvious question: Should the widely used health codes be eliminated? Given their precedent for abuse and potential infringement on privacy, most experts believe the answer is yes.
Earlier this month, a notice on the WeChat account “Travel History Card” stated that the service would go offline at midnight on Dec. 13.
That notice received lots of likes, while some wondered when Covid-19 health codes, which were launched in February 2020, would be discontinued.
Relaxation of the “zero-Covid” policy had begun a month earlier. The release of 10 new measures to optimize the Covid-19 response sharply narrowed the number of uses for the health code. For example, it is no longer needed to enter supermarkets, board public transportation or travel to another region in China.
How large is the usage? Tencent’s health code received more than 65 billion visits in the first year of its invention. Over the next two years, this figure has been on the rise.
Following that, localities around China launched all sorts of health codes in a diverse array of colors.
Special circumstance call for special measures. The public sacrificed their right to privacy in order to help prevent the spread of Covid-19. However, some local governments abused the health code.
Emergency power can be far easier to let loose than to control. With the change of Covid response measures, will we forever say goodbye to the health code? Are local governments willing to disable such a useful tool? Or is it possible to normalize the health code to make it a tool that benefits the public?
We invited some experts to share their views.
If the pandemic controls end, the health code, travel history card and site code should be withdrawn and eliminated.
Because the pandemic is an emergency, individuals have sacrificed a portion of their privacy rights for the public good. But when the pandemic controls end, the authorities should no longer track individual travel data. In addition, any previously collected data should be destroyed or sealed away.
It is unnecessary to completely discard the data framework and technical infrastructure that has underpinned the health code system over the past few years. And the public’s digital literacy has improved, especially seniors who are not as familiar with smartphones. That means the health code can be transformed from a management tool to a service utility. For example, it could be used as an identity credential for medical services like appointments, registration, payments and taking medication.
It could also be used for public services, such as an electronic pass for public transportation. Shanghai’s decision to create a “suishen code” was farsighted. It was not called a health code because it is designed for more than just a pandemic control measure, such as a personal electronic ID card or electronic ID for public transportation and medical services, or other public services.
In the future, we may be able to use this electronic code wherever a physical card or credential is needed.
Previously, we often complained about how unnecessary and overelaborate formalities were required for government services. But now once the code is connected with government data, the code is all that we need. It will integrate the functions of various certificates or identity documents and thus bring much convenience to the public.
Still, it should just be an option and people could continue to carry their physical IDs as well.
In some sense, using a digital code is safer than an ID card, because all of the data is directly read, compared and used on the device, reducing privacy risks. In addition, detailed personal information on an app can only be viewed by the person himself or herself and will not be shown to other people.
The health code is a very powerful tool designed for use in an emergency, so it’s not something that can be normalized for regular use.
People’s travel histories are among the most sensitive personal information online, and such information should not be easily collected, saved or overused for its convenience. Over the past three years, the health code has played a great role in pandemic control at a great cost of the public’s right to privacy. But it can only be used as a temporary tool because it was created as a product for a specific time and a specific purpose.
The health code was created in 2020, a time when there wasn’t much pandemic preparedness and China had yet to introduce the Personal Information Protection Law. The government lacked the basic data and technical capabilities to handle the outbreak. As pandemic controls are gradually relaxed, the health code should be discarded and all the underlying data destroyed without delay. Even if used occasionally, it should be limited strictly to public services, with the government vouching for data security.
Since the implementation of the Personal Information Protection Law on Nov. 1, 2021, health codes should no longer exist. Any health code that is still up and running actually violates the law’s basic principles of data collection.
May we no longer need a health code.
The health code should be retired as pandemic controls come to an end.
Health codes can cause hard-to-determine harm to personal information and personal privacy, and they undoubtedly pose many uncertain risks.
One iconic case of abuse involved customers of a bank in Henan province. In June, the customers’ health codes were changed to red. This incident shows that personal information in the health code is at risk of being abused, and once the information is disclosed, large-scale leakage becomes a possibility. The risk is self-evident.
According to China’s Civil Code, the personal information of natural persons is protected by law, and the right to privacy belongs to the personality right enjoyed by the civil subject.
The rules for deleting personal information in the Personal Information Protection Law are mainly stipulated from the perspective of individual rights. Though applicable to administrative bodies, the current deletion rules are still not specific enough. If the central government decides to destroy health code data uniformly, more detailed implementation standards are necessary.
In addition, it is worth noting that on Nov. 9, several national authorities jointly issued the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Health Informatization, which proposed that by 2025, every resident will have a dynamically managed electronic health file and a fully functional electronic health code.
The health code mentioned here is completely different from the one used for pandemic prevention. But are the two somehow connected? Only time will tell.
Get our weekly free Must-Read newsletter.
