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
China has successfully held its Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, with 53 of 55 countries from the African Union (AU) participating. The two countries that did not participate were Eswatini and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which have no diplomatic relations with China. Twenty-four leaders were reported to have participated. Despite African countries complaining about summit fatigue, with recent summits held with Russia, Italy, South Korea, the US and Indonesia, as well as Japan next month, they still turned up in large numbers in Beijing. China’s ability to attract most of the African leaders to a summit demonstrates that it is still being
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
RSS