Employers spying on employee instant messages; a police officer making unauthorized use of a police database to look up information about a woman romantically linked to a legislator; fraudulent telephone calls becoming the public’s No. 1 complaint — these recent news items all reflect a serious lack of attention paid to data privacy.
Advances in computer and information technology have, of course, made life more convenient. They have been helpful to the police in fighting crime. Instant messengers and other programs can make workplace communication much more efficient. TV shopping channels and online stores bring the convenience of shopping to the home.
The downside is that personal data privacy is threatened as never before. An inquisitive policeman can use a professional network to easily obtain someone’s personal information. An employer can monitor employee e-mails and other online activities at will. Personal data on consumers held by TV shopping channels and online stores can be leaked or fall into the hands of hackers and fraudsters. Who can we look to to protect our data privacy?
Take the case of the police officer who looked up details on the legislator’s girlfriend. The incident was uncovered in an investigation by the National Police Agency’s Information Management Center on its own initiative, but it seems likely that this was just the tip of the iceberg.
If citizen household registration data, tax records, health insurance details and other information can be found just as easily, similar cases are bound to keep cropping up. Can government departments be relied on to carry out internal checks? Who else will monitor whether they are doing their duty in regard to data security?
Aside from government departments, the potential for invasion of data privacy by private companies should be an even greater cause for concern.
Let us consider the case of employers who monitor their employees’ instant messages. Employers may well find it desirable or necessary to monitor use of the Internet and other electronic communications for various purposes, such as maintaining work efficiency — for example, by discouraging office staff from planting crops in virtual farms (a recent craze) — and protecting trade secrets. Monitoring may even conform with legal obligations, such as preventing sexual harassment.
But the employee’s right to privacy also needs to be protected. Privacy cases may be handled through arbitration or in courts of law, weighing up the interests of plaintiff and defendant, but would it not be better for departments concerned with such issues to take preventive measures by providing legally sound guidance and suggestions for employers to follow?
Similarly, instead of having thousands of police officers stand next to automatic teller machines all day and man the 165 fraud hotline, could the government not tackle the problem at its source by reinforcing the inspection of data protection by TV and Internet shopping firms?
The truth is that cases like these ceased to be “news” long ago, but the government has not come up with solutions. One reason is the pace of legislation. A draft personal data protection law proposed some time ago has not been passed. Another key point is the lack of a department or executive personnel dedicated to personal data protection.
Let us hope the government will take up chances offered by structural reform and the passage of the personal data law to incorporate “personal data ombudsmen” into executive departments, as suggested by human rights groups. That would be an effective response to privacy problems in our information-based society.
Liu Ting-chi is an assistant professor of law at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers