The two communications surveillance centers at the heart of what critics call the government’s rampant abuse of wiretapping should be abolished immediately, the Judicial Reform Foundation said yesterday.
The centers, which were established in the 1990s, pose a threat to freedom of speech, foundation members said at a Taipei press conference held with National Chiao Tung University students.
“The severity of the government’s wiretapping abuse problem has been greatly underestimated. We believe the root cause of the problem is the government’s two communications surveillance centers and we plan to push for an amendment to the Communication Security and Surveillance Act [通訊保障及監察法] to disband them,” foundation executive director Lin Feng-jeng (林峰正) said.
Photo: Chien Jung-fong, Taipei Times
Citing government statistics, Lin said that prosecutors had on average applied for court approval for 15,000 wiretaps each year over the past five years, about 5.6 times the number of wiretap applications filed in the US and 520 times that seen in Japan.
Taking population sizes into account, the statistics showed that about 0.044 percent of the nation’s population of 23 million are monitored by the government annually, which is 50 times higher than the rate in the US and more than 1,900 times that in Japan, Lin said.
National Chiao Tung University electrical engineering professor Su Yu-ted (蘇育德) said the centers were founded “stealthily” by the government in 1992, with one affiliated to the Ministry of Justice’s Investigation Bureau and the other with the Ministry of the Interior’s National Police Agency.
Su said the wiretapping agencies had been deemed illegitimate in the past, but had been made legal.
“However, since 2000, all telecommunication operators have been required to set up transmission lines within the centers’ control rooms. This means that the communications of every citizen in this country go through the centers and are therefore subject to government surveillance,” Su said.
Greg Yo (尤伯祥), a member of the foundation’s executive committee, said the “September political strife” not only put the issue of the government’s wiretapping abuse on the table, but also proved that George Orwell’s “Big Brother” in his novel 1984 is not just a nightmare, but is alive now in Taiwan.
The strife Yo referred to erupted when it emerged that the Special Investigation Division of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office illegally tapped the cellphone of Democratic Progressive Party caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) and the legislature’s switchboard. The division was probing Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) for allegedly improperly lobbying for Ker in a breach of trust case, claims which resulted in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Central Evaluation and Discipline Committee revoking the speaker’s membership.
“The wiretapping abuse has led to an unlimited expansion of the government’s powers. The existence of the two centers is unconstitutional because they are a threat to the public’s basic rights of freedom of speech,” Yo said.
Yo urged the public to dedicate more attention to the issue and join the foundation’s calls for the centers’ abolishment.
Former Czech Republic-based Taiwanese researcher Cheng Yu-chin (鄭宇欽) has been sentenced to seven years in prison on espionage-related charges, China’s Ministry of State Security announced yesterday. China said Cheng was a spy for Taiwan who “masqueraded as a professor” and that he was previously an assistant to former Cabinet secretary-general Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰). President-elect William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday last week announced Cho would be his premier when Lai is inaugurated next month. Today is China’s “National Security Education Day.” The Chinese ministry yesterday released a video online showing arrests over the past 10 years of people alleged to be
THE HAWAII FACTOR: While a 1965 opinion said an attack on Hawaii would not trigger Article 5, the text of the treaty suggests the state is covered, the report says NATO could be drawn into a conflict in the Taiwan Strait if Chinese forces attacked the US mainland or Hawaii, a NATO Defense College report published on Monday says. The report, written by James Lee, an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of European and American Studies, states that under certain conditions a Taiwan contingency could trigger Article 5 of NATO, under which an attack against any member of the alliance is considered an attack against all members, necessitating a response. Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty specifies that an armed attack in the territory of any member in Europe,
LIKE FAMILY: People now treat dogs and cats as family members. They receive the same medical treatments and tests as humans do, a veterinary association official said The number of pet dogs and cats in Taiwan has officially outnumbered the number of human newborns last year, data from the Ministry of Agriculture’s pet registration information system showed. As of last year, Taiwan had 94,544 registered pet dogs and 137,652 pet cats, the data showed. By contrast, 135,571 babies were born last year. Demand for medical care for pet animals has also risen. As of Feb. 29, there were 5,773 veterinarians in Taiwan, 3,993 of whom were for pet animals, statistics from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Agency showed. In 2022, the nation had 3,077 pediatricians. As of last
XINJIANG: Officials are conducting a report into amending an existing law or to enact a special law to prohibit goods using forced labor Taiwan is mulling an amendment prohibiting the importation of goods using forced labor, similar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) passed by the US Congress in 2021 that imposed limits on goods produced using forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region. A government official who wished to remain anonymous said yesterday that as the US customs law explicitly prohibits the importation of goods made using forced labor, in 2021 it passed the specialized UFLPA to limit the importation of cotton and other goods from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur region. Taiwan does not have the legal basis to prohibit the importation of goods