IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021 - 69

creeps, misuse, and lack of oversight. While the
Smittestopp app was criticized for a plethora of problems
ranging from technical and design issues to procurement
and public communication, the dominant
critical discourse has focused on illegality in the context
of data protection and privacy. While this may
appear somewhat paradoxical in a country where
the population as a whole are eager, trusting and
rapid adopters of new ICT technology, and where
data sovereignty has not yet made it into the national
political agenda, I think it indicates that change is
afoot. Data protection and privacy discourses have
become the staple of powerful political rhetoric.
Similarly, imaginaries of digital bodies as vulnerable
and in need of protection are increasingly prevalent
in public discourse. Moreover, notions of " compliance "
with the GDPR function both as an important
societal objective and an assertion of righteousness
or lack thereof. My proposition is that contestations
over digital devices will increasingly be framed
through this lens.
Holding government accountable:
Means, motivations, and mistrust of
tech activism in a high-trust society
This section discusses the means and the expertise
required for dealing with the challenges set out
above. What can we learn from Smittestopp with
respect to holding the government accountable for
digital innovations in emergency contexts? What
kind of methods and competency challenges are
civil society and academia facing? As noted above,
the intensity with which activists, technologists,
bureaucrats, and scholars struggled against Smittestopp
and the strongly worded accusations flying
from both sides suggest that fights over personal data
and privacy will intensify and proliferate. The lack
of interest in adopting a lessons learned perspective,
the absence of humility [36], the governments continued
and willful misunderstanding of how GDPR-
and the DPA-works, and the aggressive branding of
critics as selfish, abusive, and cowardly have made
this a remarkable and unusual spectacle [37]. As
observed by a tech activist:
" We have a high level of trust in the state and
the government-because the government rarely
demands more of its citizenry than is deemed reasonable.
Simula, on the other hand, acts if this trust
gives us the opportunity to intervene into the private
sphere in ways we would call scary if undertaken by
September 2021
a country like Russia or even Great Britain " (statement
by JB, on file with author).
In my view, a particularly important takeaway
from this controversy is what the Smittestopp-experience
suggests about the future of civic activism in a
country like Norway, which is not historically home
to strong foundations, labs, nonprofits, or grassroot
NGOs focusing on holding actors democratically
accountable in the digital domain. The remainder of
this section maps out a set of issues relating to how
democratic government actors respond to criticism
of digital initiatives in the context of emergencies,
and the type of challenges civil society actors face
in holding public and private sector actors accountable
for the digital transformation of governance-
and for the efforts to govern digital tools.
After the cancellation of Smittestopp, the developer,
Simula, initiated a concerted attempt to control
the post-Smittestopp narrative and to discredit
criticisms and critics. In parallel, the national health
authorities were strangely unwilling to accept the
legitimacy of the criticism of the legality of the
app and the reasons for why it was banned. This
resistance is worth unpacking. While the online
and offline exchanges over why Smittestopp failed
descended into a competitive blame game, these
exchanges also illuminate how Norwegian government
actors-usually applauded for their actions
internationally and domestically praised for the
COVID-19-respond to criticism of digital initiatives
in the context of emergencies. I have identified four
lines of contention-there are probably several
more deserving analytical attention.
The first line of contention concerns the rise of a
" blaming Big Tech " narrative as a bureaucratic and
commercial explanation for failure. According to
this narrative, Smittestopp was on a path to become
a feat of digital innovation [38] but was undermined
by opposition from Google and Apple, effectively
rendering nation states helpless in the face of the
tactics and strategies of Big Tech [39]. Simula contended
that " The unique experience of developing
Smittestopp in collaboration with the authorities in
other countries and Europe's top technologists has
been a reminder of how helpless national states
can become in the face of global IT companies "
[40] (with reference to a critical report on the privacy
problems with Google Play from Trinity College
[41], [42]). It is of critical importance for states to
regulate Big Tech-but if " blaming Big Tech " ends
69
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021
