|
EDITORIAL: Police
privacy and public rights
It is almost three years since the Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection
Act (電腦處理個人資料保護法) was amended and retitled the Personal Information Protection
Act (個人資料保護法), and a little over three months since the first part of the act
took effect. However, deficiencies in the act continue to pop up at a rate that
makes it obvious that it is deeply flawed. Even the Ministry of Justice admitted
last year that there were so many problems with the act that it could only be
implemented in two parts, as more time was needed to amend it and clarify the
confusing bits.
The ministry’s attempts at clarification sometimes only serve to muddy the
waters. For example, it has issued a notice stating that police officers are
entitled to their privacy and if members of the public want to film them they
must first obtain their permission. It added that the law prevents people from
commenting on ongoing criminal cases or making recordings at a crime scene
during an investigation, although police activities in public places can be
recorded by the public if it does not obstruct the police performing their
duties.
The ministry’s notice was apparently motivated by an incident in Greater
Kaohsiung in September last year, when two students who were stopped and
ticketed by police for driving illegally modified scooters filmed the officers
during their encounter. The students continued filming even after being warned
they needed the officers’ permission to do so, resulting in the pair facing
charges of obstructing the police in the performance of their duty.
Since the students involved were in a public place, they should have had the
right to film the officers. Did their filming actually impede the officers in
issuing tickets? Were the students not simply gathering their own evidence?
The debate over the public’s right to record police officers in the performance
of their duties is not new, nor is it unique to Taiwan. Countries and police
forces worldwide are having to draft new policies in an age where small digital
cameras and cellphone cameras have become commonplace, as has the immediate
posting of pictures and videos on the Internet.
It is wrong to interfere with the police in the lawful performance of their
duties, but recording or taking photographs alone does not constitute
interference.
Nor should police officers have the right to privacy when executing their duties
in public; that is why the majority of police forces worldwide require some form
of name tag or badge number on uniforms and for plainclothes officers to
identify themselves. It is a matter of both identification and accountability.
Even if a law states that permission must be obtained from all parties involved
before they can be filmed or recorded, there should be a provision that such
consent is necessary only if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. That
expectation does not exist in the case of the police executing duties in public.
The questioning of suspects in police stations is recorded and filmed to protect
the rights of the suspects. Many police forces also use dashboard cameras in
their patrol cars and officers wear recording devices on their uniforms to
collect evidence, provide documentation and deter abuse. A citizen’s right to
record police in the conduct of their duties is no less necessary; it is
critical to prevent malfeasance.
Being a police officer is a tough and risky job, but police forces exist to
ensure the safety of the public. The police are public servants and must be
accountable for their actions.
The ministry should immediately clarify its stance on the recording or filming
of police activities and the National Police Agency must ensure that every
officer understands the rules. If the Personal Information Protection Act has to
be amended to legalize such actions, then an amendment should be promptly
submitted to the legislature.
This is not a matter that can be left up to an individual officer or
bureaucrat’s discretion.
|
