|
EDITORIAL: Monitoring social movements
The recent rise of social movements has been facilitated by social media, which have been used to mobilize protesters, making it possible for activists to arrange the invasion of government buildings and public spaces at short notice. The police, responsible for maintaining public order, have been fighting an uphill battle. To get itself off the back foot, the National Police Agency (NPA) has set up a cyberwarfare team to monitor social networking activity on the Internet.
According to the agency, the establishment of the cyberwarfare team and the collection of public data are provided for in Item 10 in Article 2 of the National Police Agency Organization Act (內政部警政署組織法) and Article 17 of the Police Power Exercise Act (警察職權行使法). However, will the police be able to prevent crimes or street protests simply by monitoring information openly available online? Will the Web task force limit its surveillance to publicly available data? The creation of this team, along with plans to implement the “preventive” detention of demonstrators on a police black list for “incitement,” is sure to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
Even if these data are readily available online on platforms like Facebook or Line, one mostly has to be “friends” with a person to have access to their information. If the task force wants to obtain this information, it will need that person’s permission and to “friend” them. Should the police attempt to access this information under an assumed identity, it would constitute a violation of Article 4 of the Police Power Exercise Act, which states: “When exercising their power, the police shall ... present their credentials that show their identity and they shall reveal the intent.” And, even if they do show their credentials, a judge may still rule that the evidence was obtained illegally and declare it inadmissible.
If the task force wants to circumvent this obstacle and just sift through masses of information by casting a wider net, it runs the risk of infringing on the public’s constitutional right to confidential correspondence, as it contravenes stipulations in the Personal Information Protection Act (個人資料保護法). Such behavior is a serious violation of human rights, and if the government engages in illegal and unconstitutional behavior, it must be prepared to face the serious political and legal repercussions.
In their efforts to combat terrorism and obtain intelligence, US security agencies employ the “big data” approach, collecting telecommunications and Internet data from US citizens and foreign political leaders. Revelations of their methods led to serious recriminations from inside the US and robust protestations from the international community. The government should take note, and not follow suit.
The Web task force is charged with more than conducting investigations and amassing evidence. It is also charged with “mitigating comments deemed untruthful or detrimental to the police,” something the NPA has neglected to mention. So, if someone comments online that a police officer hit a protester and that protester appeared to be physically hurt, a team member could respond with a comment like “perhaps the protester was already hurt before the police officer approached,” so other online readers do not become enraged. This is providing false information to cover up statements thought harmful to the government, even though government agencies are supposed to maintain executive neutrality, and impinges upon people’s freedom of expression.
The Internet has become an integral part of modern life. It also harbors a great deal of criminal and terrorist activity. In the interests of public security, the government has the right to monitor the Internet for criminal behavior, but it should not violate individuals’ human rights in the name of maintaining public order. The government must immediately enact legislation requiring Internet monitoring to be subject to judicial authorization and legislative oversight, and clearly delineate jurisdiction and codes of practice, making it possible to investigate criminal and terrorist behavior and activities that present a threat to national security, without violating the public’s rights of expression and assembly.
source: Taipei Times
|
