Several employees of the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) are suspected of leaking people’s personal information. The news caused a public outcry and highlighted that there are big loopholes in government institutions’ information security. In view of this situation, the government should take the following steps:
First, the NHIA should as soon as possible draw up statutory regulations governing the protection of personal information. The National Health Insurance (NHI) database includes sensitive information about all insured people in Taiwan, including their health status and medical records.
However, the Constitutional Court’s Judgement No. 13 last year said that the National Health Insurance Act (全民健康保險法) lacks clear regulations regarding the subject, purpose, conditions, scope and methods of the NHI data storage, the external transmission, provision and use of the data, and about related organizational and procedural monitoring and protection mechanisms, as well as other important matters.
The judgement said that this is contrary to the intent of Article 23 of the Constitution, which embodies the principle of legal reservation, meaning laws should not unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, as well as Article 22, which implicitly safeguards citizens’ right of private communication.
The court instructed the NHIA to amend the act and other related laws, or to enact a special law, to clearly define the matters within three years.
Considering the serious implications of the latest leak, the NHIA should speed up the drafting process of legislative amendments or a new law to bolster the regulation of personal information.
Second, the NHIA and other agencies should review and update their data security management systems. There are many public agencies that store and use people’s personal information. Besides the NHIA, these include police departments, and household registration and tax offices. The Regulations on Classification of Cyber Security Responsibility Levels (資通安全責任等級分級辦法) define government agencies’ cybersecurity responsibility levels on a five-tier scale according to the sensitivity of their purview, the type of information they store and process, and the scale of their communication systems.
The NHIA has the highest cybersecurity responsibility level.
In June 2019, the Ministry of Civil Service, which also has the highest level, discovered a leak of civil servants’ personal information. A Control Yuan investigation found out that the ministry had not fully evaluated its online operations and document management systems, which store information about the qualifications and pay grades of all civil servants, in accordance with relevant regulations, compromizing the security standards of the systems.
In view of the repeated occurrence of such incidents, the Ministry of Digital Affairs should immediately help government agencies comprehensively review the level of their internal information systems and operational processes to see whether there are any deficiencies and loopholes, and make improvements as soon as any such problem is discovered to prevent subsequent cybersecurity risks.
Third, government agencies should bolster the education of civil servants with regard to law, discipline and cybersecurity. The large number of personnel involved in the NHIA case shows that civil servants in general have an insufficient grasp of law and discipline, as well as inadequate awareness of cybersecurity.
The government should make improvements in those three aspects, so that the catchphrase “cybersecurity is national security” can be more than a mere slogan.
Wang Yu-pei is a civil servant.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS