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
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS