If a person publicly announces information such as the age and gender proportion of people attending an event, would it contravene the Personal Data Protection Act (個別資料保護法)?
According to the Ministry of Justice’s explanatory letter No. 10703505830, if personal data can be used to identify a specific individual through comparison, combination or connection with other data, then they are within the definition of what the act calls personal information that can be identified by indirect means.
If the data collector has no indirect means by which to identify a specific individual, then the information does not fall under the definition.
So if the information is merely age and sex, without names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses or other information that can be compared, combined or connected to identify any particular person, then the act does not define it as personal information.
Mobile signal data analysis that electronic communications operators collect are anonymized.
This includes data drawn from major activities organized by city governments or events such as the Taiwan Lantern Festival. There is no way personal information can be leaked in such a situation.
So when Democratic Progressive Party Policy Research and Coordinating Committee director Wang Yi-chuan (王義川) spoke on a political talk show about data — consisting of ages, sex and other details of people protesting outside the legislature in Taipei — the source of the information was irrelevant.
Whether the data were from mobile signals, estimates based from observation at the scene of the gathering or questionnaires, they could not be used to identify specific individuals.
Therefore, publication of the data did not contravene the act.
The attacks on Wang by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party, accusing him of using the machinery of the state to match personal information to individuals, are simply wrong.
Yeh Yu-cheng 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
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
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS