The Chinese-language Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) reported that a Chinese man posted an advertisement in a Facebook group, hoping to purchase Taiwanese passports. The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office charged his Taiwanese Facebook agent for contravening the Passport Act (護照條例) and other laws.
Even a child knows that buying a passport is against the law, but should Facebook be held legally responsible, too?
Facebook, Line and Google’s YouTube should be considered “online advertising platforms” under Article 2 of the newly passed Fraud Hazard Prevention Act (詐欺犯罪危害防制條例), which refers to online platforms that provide paid services to place or broadcast ads on the Internet. This covers most end-to-end online platforms that run ads.
Samuel Lin (林山姆), a police officer, wrote in an opinion piece (“Taiwan’s fraud awareness drives,” Aug. 13, page 8) that “fake online ads are now the main source of Internet fraud.”
“It is fair to say that the total loss of control over online advertising is the biggest loophole in the government’s anti-fraud management,” he wrote. “From January last year to July, the Criminal Investigation Bureau ordered Internet platforms to take down 140,000 fake advertisements, of which more than 90 percent were videos on Facebook and Google’s YouTube.”
To combat fraud, the first step is to control fake ads on the Internet. However, the Fraud Hazard Prevention Act only talks about fraud prevention. It does not cover other crimes. There is also the Securities Investment Trust and Consulting Act (證券投資信託及顧問法), which regulates online platform providers, but only for advertising securities investment plans and other similar products.
Online advertising platform operators are required to have quick identification-checking mechanisms, and to formulate lawful, necessary and effective plans for fraud prevention, detection, identification and response.
Platform operators have long had screening mechanisms in place, but they might not have been proactive in implementing them, meaning the scope of the screening has not been sufficiently thorough.
In the passport acquisition case, 11 passports were acquired. Why does Facebook not care about the group that the ads were posted in?
My friend wrote to Facebook twice to point out clearly and definitely that posts promoting “cross-border marriage matchmaking” on the “Vietnamese brides in Taiwan association” page contravened Article 58 of the Immigration Act (入出國及移民法) and the authorities should be alerted. The authorities should have ordered Facebook to remove the posts.
However, Facebook never replied to my friend.
Advertising platform operators are obliged to remove online ads that are known to contravene administrative or criminal laws and regulations. If they receive a report and do not remove the ad because it makes them money, they should be held liable for “aiding an offender” under Article 30 of the Criminal Code, rather than just being penalized by administrative laws.
The Supreme Court has said that aiding an offender in the Criminal Code refers to a person who, with the intention of helping, provides assistance to the perpetrator of an offense without taking part in the act.
If an operator provides an online advertising platform for people to commit crimes, it is helping the offender commit a crime.
Yu Ying-fu is a lawyer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS