Korea 1. Korea was the pioneer of COVID policy in east asia, both pandemic response and open up the country.  2.  the law (Infection Disease Prevention Act) mandate patient tracking  without consent > at first, Goal: alert the location of the patient to prevent further spread of the disease. It is done on a voluntary basis. > Response to public concerns about privacy: Information becomes less specific.    > Disclosure: does not guarantee that right people will receive the information (published on the website).  > To improve the efficiency: the law kicked in to enable mandatory disclosure of location.  3. Location tracking mechanism used:  > Only Korea and Israel among all democracy countries: use cell tower ID for location tracking: people don't need to download apps. They are tracked by getting information from mobile companies. But later Israel's tracking was later shut down.  4. Justification:  > 2015 MERS outbreak. epidemiologist made statements about lessen learned:  (1) full disclosure of all contact list, (2) track all patients and contacts, (3) lead by epidemiologist experts in pandemic response. Implement this can prevent the next outbreak > most countries do contact tracing on a voluntary basis (interview or download app).  But MERS experience shows this is ineffective due to dishonest patients. During the outbreak 90.4% patients are infected by 5 patients lied about their movement history.  > To enable non-consensus location tracking, the law was made.  5. Mitigation efforts:  > Identify early testing and quarantine worthy targets.  Even people who might be in contact with patients can be tracked due to the law.  > Can individually send SMS texts to potential contactless instead of passively publish information online.   >  Korea has a very low COVID test conducted among the population in comparison with other countries, but the number of infected patients is much less. This is due to the successful identification of targets early. The law raised the quality of the test.    6. Problems > in other settings when the gov wants to infringe the privacy of people, we think some official independent from officials carried out the surveillance made a decision about whether the surveillance should be practiced. They become the gatekeepers making neutral decision about surveillance's necessity (ex. the judge) > But it is not the case in the COVID situation. Other countries prised Korea's performance but not following mandatory contact tracking due to privacy concerns.  > Why? cultural reasons? but then it is cultural relativism. It's a wrong explanation. It is an exception or a decision should be confronted.  > There's a tension between open data movement and privacy movement.  韓國也有健保資料庫分享的問題。 2020 通過法律參考 GDPR ，允許 non-consensual secondary use of health data for science research purpose.