IN order to beat the coronavirus crisis our lives and our civil liberties have been curtailed in a manner almost unimaginable even a couple of months ago. Last weekend millions of people across Scotland and the UK endured a sunny Easter holiday in lockdown. For many people this meant foregoing traditional family gatherings and celebrations, trips to the DIY store and holidays away. It is only natural that, as we approach our fourth week in lockdown, more and more people are starting to talk about an exit strategy.

At the UK Government press conference on Easter Sunday, a glimmer of hope appeared when Matt Hancock announced that the NHS was working on an app that will warn users if they have recently been in close proximity to someone suspected to be infected with the coronavirus. At the Scottish Government’s daily press conference the following day, the First Minister confirmed that her government was involved in discussions about the app but she emphasised that, whilst technology has a part to play in an exit strategy, people would need to be reassured about privacy and other matters.

Experts like Professor Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, have argued that the best exit strategy would involve an aggressive test, trace and isolate approach. The app would assist us to slowly ease the lockdown restrictions while this took place.

The app works by using Bluetooth signals to detect when phone users are near one another. This means that when diagnosable cases are identified, initially by self-diagnosis and then by testing, the people with whom they have had contact can then be traced, warned and quarantined.

Similar warning and contact tracing apps have been deployed in South Korea, Singapore, Israel and Iceland. The Germans are currently looking at implementing the systems used in Singapore, with tweaks to take account of the higher standards of privacy and civil liberty protections expected by citizens of the European Union. It is understood that the EU is also working on a directive to provide safeguards in respect of corona-related surveillance.

READ MORE: Concerns around tech giants’ plans to use Bluetooth to track coronavirus cases

Social scientists and ethicists at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Population Health Big Data Institute have noted that while there is wide agreement that digital surveillance is an efficient way to save lives when exiting national lockdowns, there is a risk that temporary restrictions on privacy could lead to a more permanent suspension of rights and liberties.

Earlier this month, civil liberties groups from across the world, including Amnesty International, Liberty and Human Rights Watch, issued a Joint Civil Society Statement demanding that states’ use of digital surveillance technologies to fight pandemics must respect human rights. Crucially, they did not rule out the use of the increased digital surveillance, provided certain conditions are met.

The overarching principle is that surveillance measures must be lawful, necessary and proportionate, and justified by legitimate public health objectives. Legislation will be required to ensure that this is so in order to reassure the public.

A group of enterprising lawyers led by Lilian Edwards, professor of law, innovation and society at Newcastle University, has already drafted a Coronavirus (Safeguards) Bill listing proposed protections for digital interventions.

There seems to be general agreement that the app should be voluntary. However, uptake will be crucial to its success, with experts advising 60% uptake is necessary. The bill drafters emphasise that uptake will be improved if people feel confident their data will not be misused, repurposed or shared – for example to the private sector for marketing, insurance or employment purposes – without their knowledge or consent, and that the data held will be accurate.

Data quality will be much higher if people use the app with confidence and do not provide false information or withhold information fearing misuse or discrimination or, for example, an impact on their immigration status or debt collection.

Steps must also be taken to ensure that the portion of the population which is already digitally excluded is reassured that the app will not further entrench their exclusion.

It is also vital that the app’s use is time-limited and continues only for as long as necessary to address the current pandemic. The data must only be used for the purposes of responding to the Covid-19 pandemic and there should be guaranteed destruction of data, with meaningful penalties for failure to do so.

TRANSPARENCY, oversight and accountability could be achieved by appointing an independent commission to monitor and review the provisions of the legislation, and a related tribunal to uphold individual complaints in relation to these rights. It is essential that individuals who have been subjected to surveillance have access to effective remedies.

Evidence from experts and the experiences of other countries suggest that testing, tracing and isolating using this app may be the way to ease our way out of lockdown, but it is not an easy solution. Normally the risks to privacy and civil liberties that come with increased digital surveillance are such that I would be loath to contemplate it. However, lockdown means that our civil liberties are already severely restricted, so we need to balance that with the compromises necessary to end lockdown, safeguard lives and rebuild our economy and society. It is comforting that big data ethicists, civil liberties groups and human rights lawyers think the app can work without undue threat to our privacy and civil liberties, provided it is underpinned by robust legislation and oversight.

Scotland is in lockdown. Shops are closing and newspaper sales are falling fast. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of The National is at stake. Please consider supporting us through this with a digital subscription from just £2 for 2 months by following this link: www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.