When a memorandum of exchanges and cooperation on digital technologies in transportation was signed at the Taipei-Shanghai forum, Taipei EasyCard Corp stressed that it would discuss regulation amendments with the Financial Supervisory Commission so that the EasyCard would be accepted in China within six months.
The memorandum and commission Chairman William Tseng’s (曾銘宗) ambiguous remark that it was pending approval by the Mainland Affairs Council and other agencies carry tremendous risks to consumer sovereignty and information privacy.
If the deal is implemented, EasyCard and all its affiliated card organizations and the authorities that issue identity cards would be required to disclose and review the terms of service in full, be they single-use MRT cards, multiple-use co-branded cards or cards that mandate that the user’s name be showed. Moreover, these entities and authorities should also explain how they plan to address the threat of a “Chinese-style” data monopoly once cooperation between EasyCard and the Shanghai Public Transport Card begins.
EasyCard has had a monopoly advantage ever since its inception, as it is headed by the government but operates as a business. Through continuous expansion of its applications and partnerships, its cards can be used to make small payments, pay transportation fares and parking fees, or be combined with credit cards, student cards, identification cards or library cards. They can even manage access control for admittance to private residential buildings. It has moved far beyond being just a travel card, which it was designed to be.
Some cards allow people to decide if they want to use specific functions, while some co-branded cards never give owners such options. This leaves card holders who do not want certain functions with only the choice to not activate the EasyCard function, provided they can resist the many benefits attached to it. Student cards and ID cards that bear the card owner’s name fall into this category.
Many of the co-branding schemes entail the gravest risks to data security, as consumers have no way of controlling where their personal information might end up.
The Taipei City Government is deliberating the launch of a new EasyCard that would integrate city services, authenticate identity and possibly even incorporate a voting function, the most fundamental element of a democracy. Should this be done, the public’s voting preferences might be monitored.
Regardless of how many substantial advantages the twin-city cooperation is set to bring, the complicated co-branding arrangement and functions would leave card owners clueless as to the default terms of service, technological structure and use of personal data of smart cards. The situation would only worsen if Taipei begins co-branding with Shanghai.
If EasyCard and its affiliates cannot meet the legal requirements to promptly obtain users’ approval when their personal data are used outside of the nation or beyond their intended purpose, the organizations will inevitably be criticized for selling private information about consumer behavior and financial data in the name of business opportunity and convenience.
As EasyCards that bear the user’s name can authenticate the bearer’s identity and pay administrative fees, medical registration fees and medical bills, and be used to borrow library books among other functions, should not Article 21 of the Personal Information Protection Act (個人資料保護法) — which says: “If … the following has occurred when the non-government agency transmits personal information internationally, the government authority in charge of subject industry may limit its action ... where the country receiving personal information lacks of proper regulations towards the protection of personal information and it might harm the rights and interests of the party” — restrict what such cooperation can do?
Or, perhaps the Taipei City Government would deliberately interpret the law as inapplicable since Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) claimed that both sides of the Taiwan Strait are “one family”?
In addition to the commission, whose responsibility is it to safeguard consumer privacy? Should not the agencies in charge of various co-branded cards and licenses ensure data security as the law stipulates? For instance, how would authorities ensure that issuers of co-branded student EasyCards will fulfill their duty to protect information security? How could EasyCard be held accountable to card holders? Furthermore, how would cardholders hold the Shanghai administration responsible?
It is only common sense to think that China’s personal information protection is worrying. A cooperative venture such as this is going to be an international laughing stock if it actually happens. For average card users, the way to protect themselves would be to exercise their information sovereignty and minimize the EasyCard’s functions.
The ruling and opposition parties held their tongues when China decided to replace paper Taiwanese travel permits with data-enabled cards; are they going to remain silent when the public’s interests are compromised as a result of the political and commercial integration of travel cards of both cities?
Will the Democratic Progressive Party, which is very likely to return to power next year, be pleased to see the public’s personal data leaked to China because the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are “one family” and because of the “Chinese dream”? Will this be a nightmare of authoritarian control in which privacy is invaded?
Liu Ching-yi is a professor in the College of Social Sciences at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS