COVID-19疫情下資訊自決權之研究──以歐洲人權公約第8條作為比較法對象

A Study of the Right to Self-Determination of Information in the COVID-19 Epidemic: Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as the Object of Comparative Law

2019 年 12月起，新型冠狀病毒肺炎（Coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19）（下稱新冠肺炎）從中國武漢爆發，並急速蔓延至世界各國。對此，我國為追求「有效防治嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎」、「維護人民健康」與「因應經濟社會衝擊」之目的，故採取限制人民「資訊自決權」之干預手段，期以控制疫情並降低新冠肺炎傳播風險，並進而保障全體國民之生命與健康。申言之，國家利用數位公衛科技發動防疫措施，如以「電子圍籬」監控隔離檢疫者之手機定位來掌握其行蹤，避免其未經許可任意離開隔離檢疫處所，導致社區感染；對人民展開「疾病監測」（disease surveillance）與「接觸者追蹤」（contact tracing）之干預，藉此蒐集並使用確診者、疑似確診者或接觸者之個人資料（下稱個資），提供防疫預測所需之資訊，預防新冠肺炎大規模擴散；利用健保卡查詢就醫民眾之「旅遊史或接觸史」與作為「防疫物資實名制」之媒介，除確保病人不得隱匿病情與避免感染醫療機構人員之目的外，並進一步將有限地防疫資源作出公平地且最大程度之分配與應用；至於以「簡訊實聯制」記錄群眾（電子）行蹤之措施，則係為維持國內疫情之穩定控制，使民眾生活與產業經濟能於具備一定安全條件下，逐步恢復正常運作。因此，國家採取數位科技進行監控並掌握人民電子足跡行蹤，或藉此蒐集確診者、疑似確診者或接觸者之個資來進行防疫預測，並利用健保卡分配防疫物資，其干預目的均係避免疫情擴散而得加以控制，並藉此達到保護人民生命與健康。

Since the rapid spread of New Crown Pneumonia (COVID-19) around the world, in order to prevent the massive spread of the epidemic, Taiwan has established a legal framework for epidemic prevention and control by Article 22 of the Constitution, the Special Act for Prevention, Relief and Revitalization Measures for Severe Pneumonia with Novel Pathogens, the Communicable Disease Control Act, and the Personal Data Protection Act, which allow the use of digital means to monitor or collect personal data for the purpose of protecting people’s health. However, the use of digital technology to initiate epidemic prevention measures may conflict with the individual's “right to self-determination” and lead to infringement of personal rights, such as Electric Fence, isolation of personal information collection from quarantine, and the use of text message real-name registration system or health insurance card for other purposes, which have been debated in doctrine and practice. Therefore, this article firstly explains the provisions of the anti-epidemic measures in our law and the practical opinions based on them. Secondly, it takes Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as the comparative object and analyzes how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interprets the elements of this article to achieve the purpose of protecting the right to self-determination of information. Finally, we conclude the article and present our viewpoints for the legislator’s consideration.