Since electronic toll collection was made applicable to all freeway traffic on Dec. 20 last year, there has been widespread dissatisfaction and controversy over repeated problems with the system, which is run by Far Eastern Electronic Toll Collection Co.
System downtime, erroneous toll charges and poor service have all raised drivers’ ire. Some car owners had an electronic toll “eTag” installed by a well-meaning car dealer who was duped by marketing information saying that cars could not drive on freeways without an eTag.
It is unfortunate for the people who worked as toll collectors, who have now disappeared from the nation’s freeways.
The government and Far Eastern Electronic have failed to provide clear answers on many key points.
For example, did the company wrongly blame an anonymous hacker when its system broke down due to overload, or did a hacker really exploit a loophole?
Can the company’s promise — that no eTag user’s personal information has been leaked — be trusted?
Is it true that toll collectors’ contracts did not cover their benefits if they chose to change jobs, or has the company been shirking its responsibility to redundant workers?
What contractual basis is there for Minister of Transportation and Communications Yeh Kuang-shih’s (葉匡時) promise that drivers who have been overcharged would be repaid double the overcharged amount?
If the company cannot even keep to its promises regarding the free service line and payment handling fees, can promises of compensation be believed?
None of these problems could have happened when tolls were being collected by people, but they are sure to arise now that the government is using modern technology and private companies.
The electronic toll system is authorized according to Article 24 of the Highway Act (公路法) and the Regulations Governing the Management of Highway toll Collection (公路通行費徵收管理辦法), and the system’s only permitted purpose is toll collection.
Article 10 of the regulations stipulates that if the owner or user of a motor vehicle does not pay a toll in accordance with the regulations, the toll operator should tell the collection department and give it information about the vehicle involved, including the vehicle type, license number and a photograph or video recording.
Article 17 says that the collection department is a private institution that is appointed to handle toll collection.
However, personal data can be collected under a system defined as “toll collection.”
If the personal data are used to clamp down on unlawful driving, it is sure to lead to legal disputes — even more so if it is used for other purposes that have even less to do with toll collection.
Far Eastern Electronic is entitled to record traffic information to help it collect tolls on the transportation ministry’s behalf.
After the information has been used or becomes invalid, the person who is the subject of the data is legally entitled to have it erased.
What system is in place to ensure that the ministry and the company do their duty to protect personal information?
Have they ever given road users a clear explanation about how to exercise their rights in this respect?
When drivers who do not use eTags have complaints about the company’s collection of visual information about their vehicles, or about the way they calculate fees that are owed, is there a quick and convenient way to find answers or fix the problem? Has the government figured this out? Has it given the public a clear explanation?
Still, more importantly, the National Police Agency and the Taiwan Area National Freeway Bureau are obliged to explain what relationship exists between the police’s traffic information reference system, which was set up to investigate crimes and maintain order, and the electronic toll system.
These departments should explain why they are telling the company to provide the agency’s Criminal Investigation Bureau with unconditional and unfiltered data about vehicles on the nation’s freeways.
This retention and use of personal information is a serious breach of privacy.
In effect, it treats all freeway users as potential criminals.
What justification can there be for this in a democracy? What legal basis is there to authorize such a system?
Could it be that the authorities are planning to bring back the police state under a new guise?
Leave aside for the moment the point that the government’s appointment of a nongovernmental entity to operate the electronic toll system may not be an economically efficient solution.
People have ample reason to reminisce about being able to drive anonymously and without being monitored by the police when tolls were collected by people.
People are also justified if they boycott the electronic toll system to put pressure on the government and Far Eastern Electronic. The company and the government need to face up to these controversies and give a clear response to the public’s doubts and suspicions.
Liu Ching-yi is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of National Development.
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