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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS