Image courtesy EngageMedia. This article by Samantha Floreani is part of Pandemic of Control, a series that aims to further public discourse on the rise of digital authoritarianism in the Asia-Pacific amid COVID-19. The Pandemic of Control is an initiative by EngageMedia, in partnership with CommonEdge. This edited version of the article is republished in Global Voices under a content partnership agreement. In early 2020, COVID-19 took hold in Australia. The government policy evolved to become “zero COVID,” enforced through the donning of masks, social distancing, and oftentimes, lockdowns. Suddenly, almost every aspect of our lives moved online. In times of crisis, governments often rush through additional powers, many of which put human rights at risk, and are rarely wound back once we return to relative calm. The ubiquitous technologies of the digital age, combined with a pandemic requiring us to isolate ourselves from each other, tilled the soil for a future where digital surveillance and control could bloom. In anticipation of this, human rights advocates urged governments to uphold human rights in any technological response to COVID-19. As lawyer and digital rights activist Lizzie O’Shea puts it: What will get us through this virus is not coercion and fear, but advocating for and carrying out the politics of care and solidarity. Digital technologies can play an important role in supporting a robust public health response. The question is not if we should use technology, but how. The technological choices made by Australia’s state and federal governments during this time speak volumes about their priorities and ideologies. The past two years reflect a trend: rather than employing technologies to enhance care and support of the population they were responsible for, governments in Australia prioritised politically buzzworthy projects based on an ideology of surveillance and control. This piece examines four technology-based government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. These, coupled with avoiding transparency and a reluctance to engage with technical experts and civil society, ultimately resulted in technological “solutions” that ranged from outright ineffective to actively punitive. In late 2020, Australian media outlets reported that Victoria and New South Wales Police were using drones to monitor and enforce COVID-19 rules in public spaces. This created significant unease among the public about surveillance capacities, at which Victoria Police attempted to publicly reassure people. Alongside this, mobile camera surveillance units were deployed throughout parks and other public spaces, and CCTV was repurposed to police COVID-19 restrictions, to the public’s dismay and anger. Many criticised the government’s aggressive and punitive approach to monitoring and fining individuals breaking lockdown rules, and expressed concern that governments were overstepping their authority without adequate safeguards, transparency, or accountability requirements. In April 2020, the federal government released the COVIDSafe contact tracing app. It was accompanied by a swathe of political rhetoric to convince people to download it. We heard moralising wartime metaphors, claims that the app would offer protection from infection “like sunscreen,” and patriotic calls to join “Team Australia.” The Australian public was told that 40 percent uptake was needed — a number which, it would later be revealed, was based on nothing. Over 7 million people downloaded the app, but distrust of the government’s technical ability, mishandling of privacy and security concerns, and technical flaws in the app’s design all contributed to downloads never reaching the made-up target. The app was designed to use Bluetooth to detect and record unique identifiers of nearby phones, provided they were also using the app. If a person tested COVID-19 positive, the list of all those they came into contact with was sent to the government, which then notified those who may be at risk. Crucially, it was found that the app did not work unless it remained open. This was a fundamental flaw, as it was impractical to have it open at all times. Another key concern was the app’s centralised model, which required the government to act as the middleman and to handle all collected personal information. Recognising the potential for mass surveillance or other misuses of data, privacy and security advocates strongly recommended the government take a decentralised approach. This was ignored. In spite of this, digital rights advocates were successful in pushing the government to incorporate privacy protections into legislation governing the app, including limitations preventing the use of the data for purposes other than public health.