The Ministry of Transportation and Communications’ Railway Bureau last month trialed a surveillance system with facial recognition technology, intended to increase passenger security, at Fengyuan Railway Station in Taichung. It promptly identified a fugitive after running a filtered search through a list of wanted criminals in a vast facial information database.
The incident gave rise to human rights and privacy concerns, and on Nov. 6, the agency announced that it would suspend use of the facial recognition system due to concerns over its legality.
The matter shares striking similarities with the deployment in August last year in Taipei of street lights outfitted with facial recognition technology, which laid bare regulatory and social communication issues over smart applications.
What is essentially a beneficial technology is deeply problematic given the lack of precise and targeted legislation, and this is the fault not of civil servants, but their politically appointed masters. Something needs to be done to address this.
Facial recognition technology is one of the most impressive expressions of the field of artificial intelligence applications. A large component of this technology is based upon digital image processing.
Before long, a whole range of smart city applications are to come to maturity and be implemented. As a result, it is of paramount importance that Taiwan clarifies the issues surrounding personal data protections.
IBM’s Web site says that it is unnecessary to completely ban the application of facial recognition technology, as long as “precision regulation” is used.
The IBM Policy Lab has said that policymakers must implement precision regulation targeted at specific surveillance applications to ensure that they are appropriately controlled.
A ruling on Oct. 23 in Germany, known for its stringent personal date privacy regulations, provides a cautionary tale.
The Administrative Court of Hamburg was ruling on a matter brought by the senator of the interior of Hamburg against an administrative order by the Hamburg commissioner for data protection and freedom of information. The court ruled in favor of the senator and required Hamburg police to erase a biometric database amassed during the G20 summit in July 2017.
However, Hamburg police contested the ruling, arguing that they needed to keep the data intact to study the behavioral models of left-wing extremists.
At that G20 summit, shocking pictures of protesters from around the world clashing with police in Hamburg made the front pages of newspapers worldwide.
The case hinged on Article 48 of Germany’s Federal Data Protection Act. Was there a legal basis for the police to retain the database?
The court seemed to be of the impression that the general clause of the article, which says that “the processing of special categories of personal data shall be allowed only where strictly necessary for the performance of the controller’s tasks,” gives adequate provision.
This interpretation stirred up a heated debate in Germany over private data protection concerns for the people not involved in the rioting that were just going about their business in a public space.
This case demonstrates that data protection laws would not necessarily be an obstacle to the use of private data, and need to be the basis for the discussion of how technology and people’s lives intersect. Taiwan needs to have a dialogue on the issue of private data protections.
Liao Wei-min is an associate professor at National Chung Hsing University’s Department of Law.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs