Oh no, you're thinking, yet another cookie pop-up. Well, sorry, it's the law. We measure how many people read us, and ensure you see relevant ads, by storing cookies on your device. If you're cool with that, hit “Accept all Cookies”. For more info and to customize your settings, hit “Customize Settings”.

Review and manage your consent

Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. You can also change your choices at any time, by hitting the “Your Consent Options” link on the site's footer.

Manage Cookie Preferences
  • These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Without these cookies we cannot provide you with the service that you expect.

  • These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.

  • These cookies collect information in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used. They allow us to count visits and traffic sources so that we can measure and improve the performance of our sites. If people say no to these cookies, we do not know how many people have visited and we cannot monitor performance.

See also our Cookie policy and Privacy policy.

This article is more than 1 year old

Australian state will install home surveillance hardware to make sure if you're in virus isolation, you stay there

Could be a wearable, could be wired. Backed by big fines and jail

The State of Western Australia has given itself the power to install surveillance devices in homes, or compel people to wear them, to ensure that those required to isolate during the coronavirus crisis don’t interact with the community.

Not all people will be required to use the devices. State Premier [equivalent to a US governor – ed.] Mark McGowan said they’ll only be used if: “Someone who is directed to self-isolate and fails to comply.”

The law enabling the regime, passed yesterday after very brief debate, is the Emergency Management Amendment (COVID-19 Response) Bill 2020 [PDF]. It outlines the monitoring regime, and the fact that the State Emergency Coordinator has the power to require use of surveillance hardware.

If the Coordinator makes that decision, they have the power to:

  • Direct the person to wear an approved electronic monitoring device.
  • Direct the person to permit the installation of an approved electronic monitoring device at the place where the person resides or, if the person does not have a place of residence, at any other place specified by the officer.
  • Give any other reasonable direction to the person necessary for the proper administration the electronic monitoring of the person.

Attempts to damage, remove or interfere with the operation of the devices, or refusal to hand one over to authorised officers, can result in a year behind bars, or a fine of AU$12,000 (US$7,400, £5,900).

The Register has learned of smartphone-based surveillance in aid of coronavirus-crimping in Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, plus the UK is clearing policy roadblocks to make it possible. Russia has used facial recognition and public security cameras to detect quarantine-breakers.

virus

Cops charge prankster who 'corona-coughed' on aged officer and had it filmed

READ MORE

But we’ve not found evidence of on-premises or wearable surveillance in any jurisdiction other than Western Australia. We have, however, found one opinion that the state's actions aren't out of bounds.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a London-based think tank, has issued a "Guide to the ethics of surveillance and quarantine for novel coronavirus" [PDF]. The guide considers surveillance to detect symptoms is fine, and also adds the following:

The avoidance of significant harm to others who are at risk from a serious communicable disease may outweigh the consideration of personal privacy or confidentiality, and on this basis it can be ethically justified to collect non-anonymised data about individuals for the purpose of implementing control measures.

However, any overriding of privacy or confidentiality must be to the minimum extent possible to achieve the desired aim.

The Register has asked the Western Australian government to detail the devices it intends to use, and if it has them to hand. We have not received a response to our request at the time of writing and will update this story if we receive any information. ®

 

Similar topics

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like