I was flipping through the Liberty Times (the sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) the other day and was surprised to see that someone had used a copy of a Class 2 land deed to obtain someone else’s personal information to commit fraud.
It appears that anyone could apply to access someone’s personal details, including addresses and banking information.
At the end of the article, the reporter took care to create a small glossary, where they recommended that people go to their local land bureau office and apply to have their land and property holdings information withheld from public access.
After reading the article, I headed straight to the land bureau office to inquire how to make my personal information private.
I had to take an original form of personal identification and my seal. When I got to the office, I saw a horde of people waiting to be served.
Even with the kindness and diligence of volunteers and office workers, I was stuck there for quite some time.
I waited ages for my number to be called and was immediately asked to provide a photocopy of my identification and to sign an application form. It is absurd that one has to go through so much inconvenience just to apply to protect one’s private information.
I suddenly realized that much of the land bureau data was tied to the openness or restrictiveness of the system’s design. Frankly, the level of security is weaker than the security settings for a Facebook account.
With fraud rampant, many operations that deal with personal information should prioritize the protection of users.
Bank account booklets are pretty valuable to scammers and crime rings. They are a hot commodity to be included in a criminal’s toolbox, yet the holder does not even need to present any identification if they want to walk into a bank to ask for a new one.
Bank tellers should be asking to see the person’s health insurance card at a bare minimum.
Several literary award organizations ask competition participants to provide a copy of some form of personal identification.
The organizers of the Lin Rong San Foundation of Culture and Social Welfare Literary Award do not initially require identification, but other award organizations do. The identification documentation is mostly used for tax reporting purposes.
With hundreds of participants and only a handful receiving an award in the end, organizers end up collecting many photocopies of identification cards. Should any unscrupulous person use them, it could result in a massive breach of personal data, which could lead to a heap of litigation.
Why would an entrant in these award competitions need to present identification before they have even won anything?
In many organizations, divisions at all levels are required to collect personal information from the public for the sake of providing services. If the goal is to simplify everything as much as possible, the onus should be on verifying that the service applicant is who they say they are and whether they are aiming to commit a crime.
If no one’s identity is verified in person, or if there is no reasonable suspicion, then what is the point of collecting all that personal data?
The postal service is an amazingly efficient organization when it comes to performing checks. I went last week to cancel a deposit, and my account had only a couple thousand or so New Taiwan dollars in it.
The worker behind the counter asked me what I was planning to do with the money. When I answered that I was not withdrawing any cash, the expression on their face softened.
Fortunately, Taiwan has a dream team of low-level employees, such as bank tellers, police officers, government office workers and all sorts of volunteers to help maintain social order.
In addition to giving my thanks, the government ought to create a law or change the process so that people do not need to bury themselves alive in useless paperwork just to stop fraud.
Jimmy Hsu is a farmer.
Translated by Tim Smith
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS