Government officials love to jump on the latest trends and say that keeping up with technological innovations is needed to ensure the nation’s — or the city’s or county’s — competitiveness. However, when it comes to personal data and privacy, extra thought and thorough prior consultations with those who would be affected by such changes are crucial, not after-the-fact “opinion gathering” efforts.
This appears to have been a crucial factor missed by the Taipei Department of Education in its decision to install facial-recognition systems in several public schools.
The first that many city residents heard of the idea was when the issue was raised by a Democratic Progressive Party councilor in a city council meeting on Thursday last week, yet the department said it hopes that funding for the four-school trial program would be approved in time for it to be implemented by the end of next month.
A biometric system would enhance school security, allow for “smart roll calls” and help teachers get to know their students, department officials said, as under the new 12-year national education program that begins this fall, high-school students will change classrooms for different subjects, instead of spending most of the day in a homeroom.
That is a bit facile. While changing classrooms for subjects might be new for Taiwanese students and teachers, it has been a common practice in junior and senior-high schools in many nations for decades, and teachers have found ways to “get to know” the students in their classes, even back in the days when biometric technologies were only found in science-fiction novels or television shows.
There have been no consultations with either the students of the four schools, their parents, teachers, or those from other schools in the city about the privacy implications.
Taipei Department of Education Director Tseng Tsan-chin (曾璨金) told the city council that the department was aware of such concerns and would look into the use of information and other issues, but that schools should be willing to give experiments involving innovative technologies a chance.
While Tseng promised the city council that the program would not be implemented without discussing it with faculty and parents, and other officials said the system would be installed, but not turned on, it is worrying that the idea has gotten as far as it has, with a budget of NT$25 million (US$817,207), without such consultations.
This is indicative of the bureaucratic mindset at all levels of government in Taiwan, where programs are hatched and budgeted for, but public opinion is only sought afterward, often under restrictive conditions.
However, it is not just privacy concerns that should be worrying Taipei residents about the use of such technology in schools or installing “smart lampposts” to monitor traffic flow and public gatherings, but the basic flaws in such systems.
As the New York Times reported on Thursday, a test by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of the facial-recognition technology developed by Amazon that is being used by police departments and other organizations in the US called into question the accuracy and biases of the system.
The ACLU test used Amazon Rekognition to compare photographs of lawmakers against a database of 25,000 mug shots, and the technology incorrectly matched 28 US senators and representatives with people who had been arrested, a 5 percent error rate.
The Taipei Department of Education should call an immediate halt to the pilot program and not install the technology until a full public debate can be held and officials can guarantee that privacy, security and accuracy concerns have all been fully addressed, costs be damned.
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on
The “Wuhan pneumonia” outbreak has become a pandemic, but many countries have yet to come to grips with the worsening severity of this medical crisis. Historian Robert Peckham has studied how the ecology of deadly diseases has changed from the late 19th century until today and, in his 2016 book titled Epidemics in Modern Asia highlights the intrinsic link between global connectivity and emerging infections. The frequency of outbreaks — from SARS in 2003 to swine flu in 2009 and today’s COVID-19 — and their rapid rate of transmission owe much to globalization. Better and cheaper transportation and communications technology have empowered
Early last month, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) was elected party chairman, winning with a seven-to-three majority over pro-Beijing former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), a two-time KMT vice chairman. Chiang’s victory has been interpreted as a generational change and the beginning of major party reform. In his inauguration speech on March 9, Chiang did not mention the so-called “1992 consensus.” Analysts believe that his most urgent task is to attract more young people to the party and win voter trust, and that he does not care about Beijing’s reaction. After joining the party chairmanship by-election, Chiang made his