Recently, one picture has been posted on the internet, which has sparked nearly 200,000 likes from users. In the photo, a sign reportedly advises: “No health code to enter from here”. The “no health code” channel is especially open to passengers who can’t show the health code if they are using an elderly machine, have a dead mobile phone, don’t have WeChat or Alipay, even don’t have a mobile phone, don’t know how to operate it or don’t meet the conditions to fill in the form that is required when applying to a health code. The source of the photo is from Wuxi railway station.
In the spring of 2020, the Health Code has become the new Chinese identity card, a symbol of “security and safety”. At a time when the COVID-19 is spreading, the code even has the power to determine someone’s fate. The health code is not new. Since at least the late 1990s, the Chinese government has been exploring the possibilities of e-government. The “mobile Internet” era, which started a decade ago, has brought about a higher, faster, and more powerful digital landscape.
The principle of the health code is that the user fills in their own information about the ID card and the scope of activities, and then through the integration of big data, it will be colored red, yellow, and green, providing the holder with a visual identity — healthy, with potential health risks or even in need of quarantine. People’s freedom to travel or not will depend entirely on the determination of the program running behind the health code.
And in this kaleidoscope of green, yellow and red QR codes, the question also emerges from behind the pattern: will the pass, automatically determined by the system, or be just a minority report with pre-written answers? Does technology secure our safety or purchase our freedom? Have all groups of the public been considered in the application of this policy system of hierarchy through procedures?
Hangzhou was the first city to launch the health code. On February 11, the Hangzhou health code was launched on the Alipay app and landed in more than 100 cities within a week. All of them were bound by rules, and [Green code voucher passes, Red and Yellow report immediately] banners abounded. In the beginning, some people weren’t happy with the color of the code they applied for. Many cases of complaints on the Internet reacted to the fact that they still got the red code despite being at home for more than ten days, or the color of the QR code changed frequently within a day or a few hours.
In an interview with the CCTV, Hangzhou government officials revealed that the basis and method of classifying the “three-color codes” come from the following three dimensions: First, the spatial dimension, which means that according to the national epidemic risk level, the Hangzhou big data company can accurately classify towns (streets) according to the relevant data; Second, the temporal dimension, which means that a person has been to the epidemic. The number of times in the area and the length of stay; And thirdly, the interpersonal dimension, i.e., the contact status with close contacts. The final quantitative score is assigned.
The complainants were generally dissatisfied with the above explanations. If it is possible to pinpoint the township (street)? why, in their view, would a person who has not left his or her home for more than ten days still receive a “red code”? What are the rules for converting between the three colors? Besides, is the personal information entered really the basis for the system’s decision?
Objectively speaking, it is true that the health code does not provide users with an effective way to “participate” or “express” themselves. The product itself was born out of social tensions and emergencies. And thinking in terms of color categorization with a fixed process can be called, to some extent, a denial of human rights. This has led to those healthy people who are eager to travel, to take to another online media platform to “spit out” the “digital violence” imposed by the automation of the system. And this situation intensifies as more cases of not being able to use the health code at all are discovered by society.
People who don’t have or use a smartphone, don’t use the relevant software, or simply run out of battery or malfunction when they want to present it, are stopped by the code. To keep track of potential risks, the government generally does not value “user-friendliness”. This is not even taken into account in the process from the beginning, or even implemented when the policy is in place. People are angry that they can’t be properly classified, only to find out that some people don’t even qualify to be classified and are denied the freedom to travel. A well-known concept in the field of media studies, called “digital refugees,” is a good example of the generational differences brought about by today’s digital devices. This situation has been further extended to the medical field, where, with the normalization of epidemic prevention, many well-known hospitals have canceled on-site registration services and require “mobile phone reservations” in advance. This approach does not preserve enough living space for the elderly, for whom the process of learning to operate mobile phones and systems is a drain on their lives.
To a large extent, it is difficult for a product with a mission to maintain social stability in the midst of a social emergency to strike a balance. I think this balance can be called a “trade-off” to a large extent. It is a manifestation of the consciousness and inclusiveness of science and technology to society from a broad perspective. If the operability of the technology itself is only available to a certain segment of society, should policies for its implementation strive to break this limitation? After all, the original intent of the invention of this technology and its predictable effects are factors that contribute to social stability, so the inclusion of human diversity is particularly valuable. Human freedom cannot be dictated by procedures, and the process of implementation and application needs to incorporate all the complexities of the situation in real-time. This is the reason why modern technology is constantly evolving.
The move of “no-code lines” has initiated a shift in the concept of public service, is also a “compromise” with the reality of what people observe when they use technology. More initiatives are now in place, such as the provision of paper security certificates for the elderly, and the initiative of many service providers to apply for health codes for the vulnerable group who do not know how to master the technology.
We can see more people observing society and communicating their views through new media methods, which is an invaluable enabling factor in these times. More new technologies need to keep not evolving to meet some people who have no way to keep up with the times. This is because by not leaving anyone behind, more people can try to embrace this era.