The Taipei Department of Education reportedly plans to install facial recognition systems for campus security and smart roll calls in four public high schools: Taipei First Girls’ High School, Taipei Municipal Heping High School, Taipei Municipal Zhong-Lun High School and Taipei Municipal Bailing High School.
The systems were scheduled to run on a trial basis at the beginning of the fall semester, but the news was met with a public backlash, resulting in Information Technology Education Division Director Chen Ping-hsi (陳秉熙) saying that the systems would be installed, but not switched on.
This brings to mind what happened when people discovered that mobile phones of a certain Chinese brand could automatically switch on the camera. The company responded by saying that the cameras would turn on, but not be used. The question in both cases is: Can you believe them?
In May, media reports said that the Taipei City Government would install “smart lampposts” that incorporated facial recognition systems to monitor traffic and to collect and analyze information about gatherings and parades, drawing similar public criticism.
Critics have pointed out that China is proud of using facial recognition systems to monitor and control the public. China has the world’s biggest database of people’s biological characteristics and is creating an Orwellian state where “Big Brother is watching you.”
Western countries have banned Facebook from using facial recognition to collect information about its users amid fears of possible misuse.
However, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) is going against the tide of mainstream opinion. He often praises a more authoritarian kind of democracy and even worships dictatorial historical figures.
Ko is keen on “exchanges” with China. Could it be that the kind of surveillance technology that the Chinese Communist Party uses to erode human rights has crept into “Chinese Taipei” on the back of such “exchanges?”
Ko has said that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are “one family,” but does he really want both legal systems to be “one family” too?
Now his administration wants to test highly controversial facial recognition technology based solely on the education department’s internal plan in collaboration with the system’s supplier. Does this not show a worrying contempt for Taiwan’s democracy and the rule of law?
The Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 585 says that “the right of privacy is ... an indispensable fundamental right ... for purposes of ... preventing invasions of personal privacy and maintaining self-control of personal information,” and that “the people have the right to decide whether or not to disclose their personal information, and, if so, to what extent, at what time, in what manner and to what people such information will be disclosed.”
This interpretation was originally made in connection with a controversy over fingerprinting. Now, facial recognition — another kind of biometric tool — is to be directly applied to students who are not yet adults, despite authorities having no legal mandate to do so.
The Taipei City Government’s motives are dubious, and it is suspicious that it plans to try the technology out on a soft target first. Besides, are the 15,000 surveillance cameras that have already been installed in Taipei not enough?
Facial recognition has implications not just for privacy, but also for national security. Any such system can only work in conjunction with a massive database. By cross-referencing information and processing it with powerful computers, operators can know all about anyone’s everyday activities.
This personal information is irretrievable: Once it has leaked, there is no way of putting it back, so it can have a sizable effect.
Furthermore, the central government has betrayed the public’s expectations on numerous occasions. At one time, it said that the electronic toll collection system on freeways would not be used to catch vehicles going over the speed limit, but today it is used for that purpose.
Ko likes to say that people should trust the government, but the reality is not so simple.
Chen Kuan-fu is a graduate student in National Taipei University’s Department of Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)