The National Security Bureau submitted a draft information surveillance and control act to the Executive Yuan for review this week. The bureau said the proposal was aimed at boosting its ability to combat foreign espionage and cyberattacks, and Taiwanese need not worry because it would protect them.
The problem is the more the bureau tried to defend itself from critics, the worse it sounded. First, it said that if its proposal became law, it would establish an “information surveillance and control” committee to oversee its information-gathering efforts.
Second, it said the main focus of the draft was foreign nationals living in Taiwan who do not have a registered residence, because the Communication Security and Surveillance Act (通訊保障及監察法) is applicable to foreigners living here who have a registered residence. Third, it said the proposal would not expand its current powers.
Fourth, the bureau said that it was unfair to compare the proposal with the activities of the US’ National Security Agency (NSA), which have come under scrutiny in the wake of revelations about the extent of its telephone and Internet monitoring. The bureau said it had submitted its draft act to the Executive Yuan at the start of the year, well before recent NSA leaks.
However, Taiwanese know better than most people about the dangers of security agency overreach when it comes to close surveillance, because of the White Terror years and the decades under martial law imposed by the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime.
The kind of thuggish monitoring that Chinese dissidents and activists continue to endure in China was once commonplace in Taiwan, conducted by the Taiwan Garrison Command, which was only disbanded in 1992, five years after martial law was lifted.
If the proposed legislation would not expand the security bureau’s authority, then why is it necessary?
The idea of an overview committee is not reassuring without more information about its membership and powers. Given the political rift in this nation between the pan-blue camp and the pan-green camp, committees of all sorts become a political battleground, with each camp trying to ensure that it has more members than the other even if the committee is supposed to be “independent” — just look at the National Communications Commission.
Does the bureau envision the committee being more along the lines of the US’ Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? That could be problematic, given reports over the past week that the court basically rubberstamped every surveillance request it received.
For the bureau to say its proposal should not be compared to the NSA because it was drafted long before those leaks completely misses the point. Given that the US is viewed as an established democracy, with a Bill of Rights and solid legal protection for those rights, many lawmakers and citizens have been appalled to find out how little those protections seem to matter when “national security” is invoked. People living in younger democracies must be even more vigilant in defending their rights and demanding accountability from their government and its agencies.
There has yet to be convincing evidence from US intelligence that huge data-mining conducted under the PRISM clandestine surveillance program and others is actually helping to thwart attacks. It did not help prevent the Boston Marathon bombings.
Saying the proposed expansion would only target foreigners is like the US security agency saying it does not monitor US citizens’ phone calls, just those to people outside the US. It is a red herring.
If the bureau wants to expand its intelligence-gathering, a case needs to be made about what the draft act could do that cannot currently be done under the Communication Security and Surveillance Act.
Taiwanese have learned the hard way that government assurances count for very little. The watchers need to be watched.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations