The "ILOVEYOU" virus that swept around the globe these past two days seems to have spared Taiwan the worst of its damage. Nonetheless, not a few e-mail users and companies experienced troublesome loss of data. Moreover, it appears that the primary reason for the relatively light consequences was the simple fact that the virus hit during the evening; by the time most Taiwan users here had logged on, it had already made headlines elsewhere, allowing better warning time. In other words, had it triggered at a different time, its damage could easily have been much greater.
Worldwide, this virus seems to have already caused more damage than last year's Melissa virus, which makes this the most costly such event to date. The development of new virus techniques naturally advances as rapidly as other technological change. Considering the increasing reliance of the economy, the government, and indeed our society as a whole on computers and the Internet, it is only reasonable to assume that such outbreaks will become not only more common, but also more dangerous over time.
What are the specific lessons for Taiwan? First, it is clear that Taiwan's users, and especially businesses, ought to continue to upgrade their efforts to protect their important data. Although most of the burden can be carried by the burgeoning array of private computer security companies, the government has a role to play. An apt metaphor is the Weather Bureau: just as the government monitors weather conditions and provides reports to the public, it should begin to monitor cyberspace conditions. Just as when a typhoon emerges, it should issue appropriate warnings and suggestions.
Second, there is a potentially graver threat on the horizon, in the form of directed information warfare attacks from China. If a tortured prankster can cause millions of dollars of damage, the potential for intentional damage must be recognized as a legitimate national security threat. When Chinese hackers struck at Taiwan last year, they caused only a ripple, and the Ministry of National Defense assured us that its networks were not open to the Internet. Given the rapid changes in technologies, such precautions need to be continuously maintained and upgraded, and tested in simulations.
Third, Taiwan needs to put in place a legal framework for cyber crimes, not only to assign liability in the case of damage, but to make sure that, when a Taiwanese resident is the source of a damaging virus, he or she is duly punished. The differing fates of David Smith, creator of the Melissa virus, and Taiwan's most notorious hacker, Chen Ing-hao (
Smith was prosecuted under the US Computer Abuse Act, which was enacted as far back as 1986. The fact that Taiwan still has no such law on its books risks the possibility of extreme international embarrassment. In addition, it would clearly be in Taiwan's interest to cooperate actively with law enforcement agencies overseas to investigate cross-border cases of computer crime (just as the US FBI and the Philippine National Bureau of Investigation are jointly investigating the current case).
Taiwan takes justifiable pride in the important place it has in the international high-technology economy. This prowess, however, does not come without costs. Not only does it expose us to new types of potential threats, but it creates new responsibilities. It behooves us to spare the necessary resources to guard against the former and to shoulder the latter.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath