Revelations by former US National Security Agency (NSA) employee Edward Snowden about the NSA’s clandestine surveillance have stirred up heated discussion in the US. The government in Washington is now reviewing the program.
Interestingly, US liberals have not subjected the government to heavy criticism over the affair. This is partly because they want to shield US President Barack Obama’s shortcomings and also because, while Snowden has caused the US a great deal of embarrassment, he has not said anything new. Meanwhile, the conservative camp is divided over Snowden’s revelations, wavering between the issues of national security and individual privacy.
What Snowden’s actions highlight are the loopholes in US government departments. Considering his academic and work background, it is hard to imagine how Snowden was assigned information with national security implications and how he could download the data so easily. That is what mainstream opinion in the US is really concerned about.
Reactions to the Snowden affair in Taiwan are quite odd. It is fair enough if critics pillory the US government from an idealist standpoint for using technology to delve into the lives of its citizens. However, some people have been aligning themselves with China’s viewpoint by mocking the US, while ignoring China’s construction of a new iron curtain to control the Internet and spy on dissidents. Such an attitude is confused in the extreme.
Before people criticize the NSA’s program based on surface values, they should be asking what attitude the Taiwanese government has toward network security and online freedom.
Netizens recently got upset over a government proposal to make local Internet service providers block overseas Web sites infringing copyrights. These planned amendments to the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法) would immediately reveal sensitive data about Taiwan’s telecommunications infrastructure, throwing the door to the nation’s network security wide open. Not surprisingly, officials think it is a bad idea.
At the same time, the law in its proposed new form would impact on freedom of speech, since it would authorize government departments to obtain user information from service providers without recourse to legal procedures. Bureaucrats could make their own subjective judgements on whether online content was harmful to society and then remove or block it accordingly. That power, and the threat posed to Internet users, is many times greater than that of the NSA, which is strictly limited to combating terrorism. It amounts to a revival of the Taiwan Garrison Command that operated during the Martial Law era. How is this any different from the control that China’s public security apparatus wields over the Internet?
Taiwan has a Personal Information Protection Act (個人資料保護法) whose protections go too far, perhaps, with a bunch of untrustworthy people handling sensitive information. Part of the problem is it is out of the hands of commercial providers. Moreover, a crowd of conceited and frivolous personnel are endowed with the right to spy on, record and track anybody, from the president down to ordinary citizens, and over whom the public has no control.
Should Taiwanese rejoice that everyone is treated equally in the fight against crime, or should they worry that one day Taiwan will have its own Snowden who, tormented by the imbalance between his own powers and duties, runs off clutching a record of the president’s communications and connections, accusing Taiwan of being a police state?
Li Chung-chih is a professor at Illinois State University’s School of Information Technology.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with