Already before the present Covid-19 health crisis an emerging trend could be seen towards offering health services from a distance, called “e-health”. This trend, like so many other developments towards digitalisation of our societies, received a considerable impetus because of the Covid-19 crisis. First, the rise of Covid-19 tracing (and/or tracking) apps and now to be followed by the advance of Corona vaccination apps has made us aware of the benefits which e-health may bring, particularly in a situation where distance means safety. The apps contain very personal information and, consequently, have provoked questions as to whether the apps sufficiently protect a person’s right to privacy and data protection as safeguarded by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. The nature of the data, however, is such that also questions as to the importance of access by public health authorities in the public interest can be asked. Also, although commercial, but still important for developing and producing vaccines, for the pharmaceutical industry the data are important. The result is a conflict particularly between entitlement to privacy protection and the general interest, causing questions to be asked about which interest has priority. It might very well be, however, that this question, asked as such, is beside the point. Given that data are non-rivalrous and non-depletable, because they can be copied and copied, questions about which entitlement has priority cannot be answered in absolute terms. Rights regarding data depend upon who at a particular time has control over the data, who else has control and what control between all those involved then means. Looking at who has which right to data one can see an entitlement paradigm surfacing which is multi-perspective, relative and dynamic. Calling data entitlement “ownership” is not a reference to ownership in the traditional sense of the word, but to management. To decide what management in a particular situation means interest balancing exercises must be made. These exercises will change over time, as accordingly will the answer to the question who is “owner” of data in Covid-19 and Corona vaccination apps.

在当前的 Covid-19 健康危机之前，可以看到一种新兴趋势，即远程提供医疗服务，称为“电子医疗”。由于 Covid-19 危机，这一趋势与我们社会数字化的许多其他发展一样受到了相当大的推动。首先，Covid-19 追踪（和/或追踪）应用程序的兴起以及随后电晕疫苗接种应用程序的发展让我们意识到电子医疗可能带来的好处，尤其是在距离意味着安全的情况下. 这些应用程序包含非常个人化的信息，因此引发了这样的问题：这些应用程序是否充分保护了欧盟通用数据保护条例所保障的个人隐私权和数据保护权。然而，数据的性质 如此一来，也可以提出有关公共卫生当局为了公共利益获取信息的重要性的问题。此外，虽然商业化，但对于开发和生产疫苗仍然很重要，对于制药行业而言，数据也很重要。其结果是隐私保护权与普遍利益之间的冲突，引发了关于哪个利益优先的问题。然而，这样问的这个问题很可能是跑题了。鉴于数据是非竞争性的和不可耗尽的，因为它们可以被复制和复制，所以无法绝对地回答关于哪些权利具有优先权的问题。有关数据的权利取决于谁在特定时间控制了数据，还有谁拥有控制权以及所有相关人员之间的控制权意味着什么。查看谁对数据拥有何种权利，可以看到一种多视角、相对和动态的权利范式浮出水面。将数据权利称为“所有权”并不是指传统意义上的所有权，而是指管理。要决定在特定情况下采取何种管理方式，必须进行利益平衡。这些练习会随着时间的推移而改变，因此对谁是 Covid-19 和 Corona 疫苗接种应用程序中数据“所有者”的问题的回答也会随之改变。要决定在特定情况下采取何种管理方式，必须进行利益平衡。这些练习会随着时间的推移而改变，因此对谁是 Covid-19 和 Corona 疫苗接种应用程序中数据“所有者”的问题的回答也会随之改变。要决定在特定情况下采取何种管理方式，必须进行利益平衡。这些练习会随着时间的推移而改变，因此对谁是 Covid-19 和 Corona 疫苗接种应用程序中数据“所有者”的问题的回答也会随之改变。