|
Legislative backsliding threatens
democracy
By Michael Danielsen Gunter Whittome
Friday, May 07, 2010, Page 8
Compared with their colleagues in many other countries, the Taiwanese media
stand out as aggressive purveyors of gossip.
The remedy to such a culture, however, is not the updated Personal Data
Protection Act (個人資料保護法). That law represents a setback for democracy.
It is highly regrettable that both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) support the act, which contains such vague
phrases as acting in the “public interest” and the use of “generally accessible
data.” This leaves far too much room for interpretation and history is full of
examples of how such ill-defined language can be used to undermine democracy and
free speech. China is probably suitably inspired.
That politicians have asked academics to define “public interest” and “generally
accessible data” helps in no way. Such definitions are unlikely to be any more
farsighted than the academics providing them. There is also no guarantee that
academics will be able to agree any more than politicians on a single
definition. Ultimately, it will fall to the courts to decide.
Tragically, the act’s passage through the legislature was met by inept
politicians sleeping on the job. A previous draft was watered down to such an
extent that the media are now exempt from a requirement to inform and obtain
consent from individuals before publishing their personal data, even when
gathered through public and social activities.
The media are now allowed to search and collect “generally accessible data”
about individuals when acting in the “public interest.” The uncertainty
surrounding these terms also has implications for bloggers, non-governmental
associations and individuals.
Publicly obtainable personal data may now be used, unless the person concerned
has an overriding interest that enjoys higher protection than the freedom of
expression. In such cases individuals can demand that related data are not
published, leaving room for yet further interpretation.
In Germany, a clear distinction is made between safeguarding the data of
ordinary citizens and “individuals of public interest.” People who are well
known to the general public through the media must accept that they will be
reported on extensively, including information regarding their private lives.
Such individuals for the most part enjoy the spotlight. The general public has a
right to be kept informed about their lives, with the proviso that reporting
does not become harassment, as was the case with former president Chen
Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) daughter, who was followed every day for months in Taiwan and
overseas. In the interest of maintaining a free press, such limits need to be
defined very broadly.
Regulations preventing personal data from being “combined” might increase the
protection afforded individuals by ensuring personal profiles do not end up in
private databases. However, such information can still be used in the media,
making this a highly dubious clause.
The lawmakers were probably well intentioned, but the solution they have come up
with is worse than the original problem. Those who believe they have been
harassed or slandered already have legal recourse available to them, without
this act.
Instead, a broader approach needs to be taken, beginning with the promotion of
better journalism by a more professional media. This could include such things
as a code of conduct, quality standards, the professional education of would-be
journalists through internships and independent schools of journalism.
A similar law enacted in Europe or elsewhere in the Western world would have
been met with outrage. Unfortunately, in Taiwan it is just one more piece of
evidence that democracy is in retreat.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner. Gunter
Whittome is a writer living in Taipei.
|
