Surveillance, Safety, and Scandal

-- By HyewonKim - 23 Oct 2024

Introduction

During the COVID-19 outbreak, South Korea earned widespread praise for its swift and effective response. South Korea had less than 25,000 cases by September 2020 while the United States reported 40,000 new cases daily by this time. Many attributed this stark difference to South Korea’s aggressive contact tracing system, which relied heavily on surveillance. Yet, the reality of its success and its broader implications raise critical questions about the role of privacy, culture, and governance in managing public health crises.

Surveillance

South Korea’s contact tracing program operated at an unprecedented level of detail. Credit card transactions, cell phone logs, and footage from 1.7 million public CCTV cameras were integrated into a centralized database, enabling authorities to map the movements of confirmed COVID-19 patients with precision. Alerts like “Patient #4 visited X restaurant at Y time” were sent to residents in affected areas.

This system allowed for rapid disinfection of contaminated locations, identification of potentially exposed individuals, and a sense of public empowerment to avoid high-risk areas. But was it truly surveillance that accounted for South Korea’s low number of cases?

Epidemiologists question whether contact tracing alone can control a virus as transmissible as SARS-CoV-2. Other critical factors included South Korea’s robust testing infrastructure, isolation of travelers, and high-quality healthcare system. Countries like Taiwan and Singapore achieved similar or better outcomes without resorting to such invasive measures. By comparison, China’s draconian lockdowns failed to achieve proportional results, hampered by gaps in healthcare capacity and inconsistent enforcement.

Thus, while surveillance was a tool, it was likely not the decisive factor.

Privacy and Public Trust

The South Korean public’s overwhelming acceptance of surveillance highlights the cultural context in which these measures were implemented. In collectivist societies like South Korea, communal well-being often outweighs individual freedoms. Many saw privacy as a necessary sacrifice to protect themselves and their communities. However, this perspective is not universal. In countries like the United States and Australia, where individual liberty holds paramount value, such surveillance would likely spark significant resistance, as seen in the debates over mask mandates and lockdowns.

Yet, even within South Korea, the program’s execution had unintended consequences. The publication of personal details—such as patients’ movements and activities—opened the door to social stigmatization. Speculation about extramarital affairs or “irresponsible” behavior often became fodder for public judgment, eroding trust in the system for those affected.

Beyond Privacy vs. Safety

While the dichotomy between privacy and safety often dominates discussions of surveillance, it offers little insight into the deeper questions about how societies should balance competing values in times of crisis. Instead of viewing privacy and safety as opposing forces, we might consider different factors that could have helped this type of response. Governments, like the South Korean government, need to justify their surveillance measures with clear metrics and evidence showing their effectiveness. The surveillance and notification program in South Korea could have been more palatable to the public if it published less irrelevant information on the activities of patients and had more anonymized notifications.

More transparency on how the data is used and how long it is kept could have increased public trust in the program. The program also disproportionately affected specific groups, such as members of the [https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/19/south-korea-coronavirus-scapegoat-shincheonji/][Shincheonji Church]]. The notification alerts led these members to be even more ostracized by the public when they started using cash to dodge the tracing program. By making this group of people outsiders, the program essentially created a larger risk of pushing people away from being a part of society. Unwatched, outside groups may be able to do more good than the main community, but the ostracized church members committed despicable acts.

When surveillance becomes a core aspect of society, like that of South Korea, individuals who do not want their data to be collected or watched everywhere they go are forced to be fragmented from society. The awareness of being watched increases emotional distress and can lead to a deterioration of mental health. If escaping society is the only solution people have, then society will inevitably deteriorate as technology becomes more prevalent. Some see society as so unlivable that they resort to propofol abuse or suicide. Ultimately, a society prioritizing surveillance over inclusivity risks alienating its members, fostering division, and exacerbating the issues it seeks to resolve, leading to a fractured community and a diminished sense of collective well-being.

Conclusion

While South Korea’s surveillance-driven contact tracing program played a role in curbing the spread of COVID-19, its implementation raises important questions about the costs to privacy, trust, and societal cohesion. The program’s success highlights the potential of technology in addressing public health crises. Still, its shortcomings underscore the importance of transparency, cultural sensitivity, and the need to balance safety with fundamental human rights. The South Korean experience now serves both as a model and a warning as societies make their way into the increasingly digital future, reminding us that true solutions must put a premium not just on outcomes, but also on the dignity and inclusivity of all individuals.