Did the Pandemic Normalize Surveillance and State Control?

The temperature scanner beeped green at the campus library entrance, and I swiped my phone across the health app without thinking. It was my second week of junior year, fall 2021, and I had already shown that app to eight different checkpoints that day: my dorm lobby, the dining hall, two classroom buildings, the gym. Each time, a stranger glanced at my screen to confirm I had passed my daily symptom check and uploaded a negative test result. I barely remembered what it felt like to walk through a door without proving something about my body first.

The pandemic introduced surveillance tools that officials promised were temporary, but three years later I wonder if we ever really got our privacy back or if we just stopped noticing when it disappeared.

Before March 2020, my relationship with government monitoring felt abstract. I knew about security cameras in public spaces and vaguely understood that my internet activity could be tracked, but these facts stayed in the background of my life. Then suddenly my university required a contact tracing app that recorded everywhere I went on campus. My hometown in Ohio instituted curfews enforced by police patrols. My parents had to register online before visiting me, submitting their vaccination status and recent travel history to a database. What shocked me most was how quickly these measures stopped feeling strange. Within months, scanning QR codes and sharing health data became as routine as checking the weather.

Governments gained new powers during the pandemic that reached far beyond health tracking. Lockdown orders confined billions of people to their homes under threat of fines or arrest. Police in some cities used drones to monitor crowds and ensure compliance with gathering limits. My roommate's family in California faced rolling curfews that security forces could enforce by checking identification and addresses. Officials could shut down businesses, restrict travel between states, and mandate what people wore on their faces in public spaces. These measures arrived with little debate because the emergency seemed to justify immediate action. Public health became the reason to accept controls that would have sparked outrage two years earlier. The question is whether those expanded powers actually went away when infection rates dropped.

The technology we adopted to fight the virus created infrastructure that remains in place today. My university still uses the same digital system to track our locations through building access logs, though it no longer mentions COVID on the login screen. Airlines and border agencies built databases linking our health records to our travel documents. Employers became accustomed to monitoring their workers remotely through software that tracks computer activity and productivity metrics. I noticed that my sophomore year internship required software on my laptop that took screenshots every ten minutes and logged my keystrokes. When I asked about it, my supervisor said it was standard practice now that remote work was common. The tools designed for a temporary crisis became permanent features of how institutions manage people.

Some argue that this surveillance made us safer and that privacy concerns are exaggerated when the systems collect only necessary information. My economics professor pointed out that contact tracing apps helped slow transmission and probably saved lives by identifying exposure clusters quickly. She noted that South Korea's aggressive tracking system kept their death rates low compared to countries with weaker monitoring. When I visited my grandmother last summer, she said she felt more secure knowing that everyone entering her assisted living facility had verified their vaccination status. These are legitimate benefits. Democratic oversight and sunset clauses could theoretically limit abuse. But I struggle with the assumption that institutions will voluntarily surrender power once they possess it, especially when that power arrived with so little resistance.

I still use my phone to enter most campus buildings, though the app no longer asks about symptoms. The infrastructure persists while the justification faded. I think the pandemic taught governments and corporations that populations will accept intrusive monitoring if the framing emphasizes safety and collective responsibility. We normalized the idea that our movements and health status are information we owe to authorities rather than private facts we control. Maybe that shift was inevitable as technology advanced, but the speed troubles me. I wonder if my future children will find it strange that people once walked freely through doors without proving anything, the way I find it strange that my parents once boarded planes without removing their shoes. Some changes feel permanent even after the emergency ends.

Did you like this example?

253

11