The lockdown that countries all over the world are currently experiencing is putting a renewed focus on personal hygiene. But despite people being advised to wash their hands often, how many apply the same rigour to their smartphones? Kaspersky provides a few tips on keeping mobile devices ‘virus-free’.
“Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it is frightening to think how much bacteria lives on our personal mobile devices. And with the Coronavirus able to survive at room temperature and remain infectious on metal, glass, ceramic, and plastic for several days, it becomes essential to follow effective disinfection protocol,” says Maher Yamout, Senior Security Researcher for the Global Research and Analysis Team at Kaspersky.
The virus can get onto a phone or tablet in two ways: either in tiny droplets when an infected person coughs nearby, or from your own hands after touching door handles, ATM buttons, and the like.
Fortunately, unless a person hands their mobile device to someone who is infected to cough and splutter all over it, the probability of infection by airborne route is low. Transmission by hand depends on the duration of contact and varies for different microorganisms. But with no reliable data for COVID-19 available yet, it is always best to be extra cautious.
“If you must go to the shop for essential goods, it is imperative to disinfect your phone when you return home. There are several common household products that can deal with the Coronavirus effectively - ethanol (C2H5OH), isopropyl alcohol (C3H7OH), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and sodium hypochlorite (NaClO),” adds Yamout.
Isopropyl alcohol is considered the least harmful to the oleophobic coating that allows fingers to slide over the screen without covering it in fingerprints. So, use it if you can (as spray or wet wipes).
Ethanol and hydrogen peroxide should be considered a backup if nothing else is available. With frequent use, these products can easily ruin the oleophobic coating. Even once might be enough, it depends on the coating.
As for concentration, the optimal to go for is approximately 70-80%. Purer alcohol evaporates too quickly for best results. The disinfecting solution must sit on the surface for about a minute. A lower concentration is less efficient in killing viruses.
People should therefore not rely on vodka for example instead of ethyl alcohol. Even glass cleaner is not as effective as isopropyl alcohol given it has a considerably lower alcohol content. It is also critical to not pour the disinfectant into the connectors, speakers, and other openings in the smartphone, even if it is waterproof. Rather, take a cotton pad, soak it in the liquid, and apply it to all sides of the device. There is no need to press hard, just carefully and thoroughly wipe the whole surface.
People should apply the same disinfection regiment to any other gadgets they use in public places. These can include tablets, laptops, smartwatches, bracelets, headphones, and so on. However, always check the product Website whether the manufacturer has any recommendations as to which substances are best suited for the device cleaning and how to apply them.
During a state of emergency, governments, as the duty-bearers, are allowed to temporarily suspend the exercise and enjoyment of some rights. They are also allowed to bypass some procedural limits to have more of a free hand to deal with the emergency, while maintaining law and order.
But national and international laws set limits for governments to follow to avoid abuses and possible human rights violations.
Ghana has introduced a range of measures in a bid to stop the spread of the coronavirus. These include quarantine and isolation of those who have the virus. Restrictions have also been placed on a host of events, including public and social gatherings. The country’s borders have been shut and partial lockdowns imposed in Greater Accra, Tema, Kasoa and Greater Kumasi.
Many of these measures have been imposed under a new law, the Imposition of Restrictions Act, which was passed by parliament two weeks ago. The act was opposed mainly by the parliamentarians belonging to the minority party.
The law states that “the imposition of the restriction under subsection (1) shall be reasonably justifiable in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution.”
But this is not the case. This is just one of a number of big concerns with the new law, and the way in which the president has gone about enacting it.
The first is that it is draconian and opens the door to overreach and violations of fundamental rights and freedoms in Ghana. Second, the president chose not to put an expiry date on when the provisions of the act will be lifted. Thirdly the act is general – its doesn’t mention COVID-19 as its focus. Section 7 provides only a broad definition of “disaster”, which means that any president can use it in future under various circumstances.
The problem with the Act
The Imposition of Restrictions Act was enacted based on a directive issued by the president on March 15 to introduce emergency measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. In his speech, he directed the attorney-general to introduce “emergency legislation” to that effect.
The act is “to provide for powers to impose restrictions on persons, to give effect to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of clause (4) of article 21 of the Constitution in the event of an emergency, disaster or similar circumstance to ensure public safety, public health and protection.”
The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic and a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January. Based on the WHO definition, a state of emergency exists in Ghana as in many other countries affected by the pandemic.
Ghana has a law – the Emergency Powers Act, 1994 (Act 472) – that allows it to declare a state of emergency. Its 1992 constitution also makes provision for a state of emergency. The reasons for this include a public health emergency which can trigger a quarantine or isolation order. This would justify restricting people’s movement.
This shows that the president didn’t need a new law. He had all the powers he needed set out in the constitution as well as a number of existing laws to restrict the movement of Ghanaians during a health crisis such as COVID-19.
By taking these steps the government has gone the route of a number of states which have enacted what have been described as emergency laws in response to the coronavirus pandemic, without actually declaring a state of emergency under law. Terms such as “restriction”, “lockdown” and “lockout” are preferred.
The new act violates the constitution in a number of critical ways.
The main problem is that it was enacted outside the purview and control of the 1992 constitution.
First, the Emergency Powers Act requires the president to consult with the Council of State, an advisory committee of eminent citizens, before declaring a state of emergency.
Yet the new act gives this power to a “relevant person or body”. This opens it to abuse.
Second, parliament has the power, under the constitution, to revoke the declaration of a state of emergency or extend it for up to three months.
However, under the new act, this power is reserved for the president.
Act 1012 seeks to derive its authority from article 21(4)(c) of the constitution, which is limited to freedom of movement only. Yet the act restricts the enjoyment of many other rights. Among them is the right to privacy. The act grants the government wide powers to intercept communication and the services of the network provider at the disposal of the state for mass dissemination of information.
There are other protections the act does away with. For example, the constitution stipulates that a person restricted and detained under a state of emergency will be accorded certain privileges and will be released immediately after the expiration of the state of emergency.
No such privilege exists under the new act, which can have a person incarcerated for up to four years.
Flexibility is important to deal with emergencies. But it does not justify the steps taken by Ghana’s government to deal with the COVID-19 emergency.
Governments generally have an uncanny desire to exploit novel situations or emergencies to gain political advantage. In my view the Imposition of Restrictions Act, 2020 lends itself to abuse as it can be applied in a variety of situations that the government can imagine – or create.
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, has observed that in dealing with the pandemic
emergency or not, states must reach the same threshold of legality, legitimacy, necessity and proportionality for each measure taken.
Instead of seeking to protect the health of Ghanaians and stop the coronavirus epidemic by instituting totalitarian surveillance regimes, the government should rather focus on empowering citizens. An empowered citizenry is well-informed and self-motivated, trusts the state and is ready to propose new social contractual terms with the state to deal with an emergency.
This comes about where the state is transparent and accountable and also trusts the citizenry.