This post was originally written in August 2020, amidst the COVID-19 global crisis, and was titled “Privacy protection and COVID-19  tracking”.

In 2025, COVID-19 appears to be a minor issue in comparison to digital threats to individual freedoms, which governments and other non-commercial institutions are exploiting through various tactics that utilize digital tools to exert control over individuals. 

However, since the then-written post still holds some value, let me first repeat that post verbatim:

Privacy protection and the COVID-19 tracking

At this very moment, every country, including Slovenia, faces a challenge with the COVID-19 tracking app. Every tracking should be subject to scrutiny regarding such an important issue as privacy and individual freedoms. So, it should be a COVID-19 tracking app.

But!

Who should evaluate possible threats to individual freedoms?

I will not answer this question directly, but indirectly. Why? Since the question of “who” is supervenient to the question of “on what basis”.

The expected question to the last question would be: on the basis of existing positive legislation.

But wait! Existing positive legislation regulates situations that were common in times when such regulation was written. So it was definitely before the outbreak of COVID-19.

My thesis is that the COVID-19 pandemic represents a unique challenge not only for health management but also for all written and unwritten laws that regulate social behaviors, and with that, also for all infringements on our freedoms.

If my thesis is valid, then all actions related to COVID-19 should be first conceptualized anew, and later, based on a more or less common understanding, findings should lead to an updated version of written and unwritten laws that govern our social behavior.

To be very precise, it is unwise and even dangerous to leave the question of the COVID-19 tracking app (and all other measures related to COVID-19) to legal experts and any authority that has to take measures based on existing legislation. The new reality is not created based on existing legislation. And COVID-19 challenges us to conceptualize this new reality first. I’m afraid we have not done it yet.

We should be aware that tracking devices are not a contemporary invention. Thousands of years ago, some individuals peeped through windows and tracked individuals of their communities. Since communities in ancient times were small, they could perform their sanitary job without the help of technology. Nowadays, tracking is impossible without the support of technology due to the size of communities. But the main sanitary task stays the same.

Yes. Tracing this breach of individual freedoms is a sanitary act. It is painful for individuals, but if decentralized and not in the hands of a state, it is essential for the sustainability of any community. The stress is: if not in the hands of the state, if not centralised.

I will definitely use this app when available, for the immediate threats are far lower than the possible benefits. But at the same time, I will try to make sense of this new situation for myself and, if allowed, help others to make sense of it for themselves.

The future is too important to leave to the decisions of legal experts.

The Future is Now!

I did not exempt commercial entities from using tracking devices by mistake; however, I strongly oppose their abuse by non-commercial entities. 

The reason is straightforward. My relations with commercial entities are either contractual or at least reversible. In the first case, I’m aware of what I’m entering into, and if a commercial entity breaches the contract, I can legally claim compensation and terminate the relationship. If there is no direct contract with such an entity, as when I enter a shopping center, then I can avoid entering that center if I feel that I’m being digitally misused. The “way back” might not be easy in some instances, but at least it exists.

The imposition of digital surveillance by non-commercial institutions, on the other hand, is irreversible. The social contract that seemingly protects me from the abuse of the State and related institutions is barren in such an instance, especially in cases where such abuse is legal. The unelected executive bodies that stand behind digital surveillance are so remote from the elected legislative body that my negative vote on elections does not exempt me from being surveilled. There is no way I could escape the acts of non-commercial institutions that infringe upon my personal freedoms, especially the freedom to protect my privacy.

Artificial Intelligence poses a negligible threat to individual freedoms compared to the digital surveillance that State institutions exert over individuals.