新型冠狀肺炎（COVID-19）「數位接觸者追蹤」之法律與倫理議題初探

Legal and ethical issues of COVID-19 ''Digital Contact Tracing'' measures in Taiwan

"目標：新冠肺炎大流行為全世界帶來前所未有的挑戰。在有效治療藥物與疫苗研發成功之前，非藥物的介入方式（non-pharmaceutical interventions, NPIs）格外重要；其中，數位接觸者追蹤成為2020年全球重要防疫科技之一，台灣疫情指揮中心也使用多種接觸者追蹤措施，本文探究此新興公衛科技的執行、相關法律與倫理議題。方法：透過檢視衛福部官網、新聞報導、研究論文、法規、國際組織指引，本文類型化地呈現數位接觸者追蹤措施使用狀況以及其引發的法律與倫理議題、各方討論與回應。結果：台灣社會在此次疫情中確診、死亡人數皆遠低於其他國家，顯示合併使用多種防疫措施之成效，但也付出法律與倫理代價：電子圍籬、健保系統勾稽、電子足跡資料、簡訊措施皆欠缺法律明確性，也引發公私機構以超前部署之名，進行具倫理與科學有效性疑義的介入，並欠缺監督機制與公眾討論。結論：隱私、自由與防疫監控並非相互衝突的兩難選擇，讓新興數位技術成為防疫與公衛科技一環，除了資訊與生醫專業，也需要納入流行病學、公共衛生、法律、生醫科技倫理、社會科學等不同領域的專業，與相關公民團體，參與數位防疫科技的設計、使用、評估與監督。"

Objectives: COVID-19 has posed unprecedented challenges to governments and civil society worldwide. Before effective treatments and vaccines become available, nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including digital contact tracing technologies, are critical for delaying or controlling the spread of COVID-19. This paper investigates the practices, discussions, and legal and ethical issues of the contact tracing measures imposed in Taiwan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: By analyzing official documents from the Ministry of Health and Welfare website, media reports, legal regulations, international organizations' ethical guidelines, and research on contact tracing measures, this paper categorically presents the applications, effectiveness, and legal and ethical concerns of these measures in Taiwan. Results: Although the rates of confirmed cases and deaths from COVID-19 are low in Taiwan, the Electronic Fence of Surveillance, a digital contact tracing measure implemented by the National Health Command Center, was found to lack legal certainty. Some proactive deployments by public and private organizations that have used location-based services, the National Health Insurance system, and the center's data on of the digital footprints of confirmed cases do not meet ethical and scientific validity standards. Oversight mechanisms have not been established, and public reflection has not been addressed. Conclusions: This paper argues that the choice of upholding individual privacy rights versus performing digital contact tracing is not binary. To make digital technologies part of measures against COVID-19, and future public health crises, it is crucial to include diverse experts not only of information technology and biomedicine, but also of epidemiology, public health, law, ethics, and social sciences, as well as civil organizations in the design, application, oversight, and evaluation of new public health technologies.