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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS