Revelation of Personal Data vs. Protection of Personal Data

This article was on Liberty Times Opinion 10 March, 2009. Here it is in its original length.

As we are becoming more accustomed to the revelations, by the media of personal or private information which appear to pertain to “public interest” but never are the case, our Legislators, in the name of “public interest”, acting as upholders of justice while revealing personal information to the media, with often false sources unidentified or without prior notification or consent of the individuals. Existing practices do not provide legitimacy of the purpose itself; however, the Legislative Yuan is working on legalizing these practices.

While drafting Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act in 1995, the Ministry of Justice claimed that the law was in accordance with the principles laid down by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Those principles include restriction on the collection (the principle of legality and notification), correctness of the data, the clarity of the objective of the collection, restriction on the application of these data, the protection of these personal data, the availability of information about data collection, personal participation in the maintenance and application of the collected data, the accountability of data collecting officials.

Members of the Alliance for Protection of Personal Data (APPD) have been actively engaging the Ministry of Justice and Legislative Yuan in convening meeting on the protection of personal data. APPD holds that, a supervising mechanism is essential for the collection of personal data lest the focus of discussion on invasion of privacy rest on the amount of money compensation received by the persons being affected. The items in the exemption clause, APPD insists, be included only the following for a sound protection of personal data and privacy,

a. deemed necessary for national security,
b. preventing the lives, freedom and property of others from being damaged (genetics still excluded from this exemption clause),
c. the damages being negligible and already compensated by other appropriate available means,
d. verification of individuals being impossible and the silence of those individuals being affected on this matter.

However, in the amendment proposed by the Executive Yuan and Legislators, the scope of exemption from notification is enlarged, including items such as “the possible hindrance of execution of public authorities” and “the collection of personal data for the purpose of news reporting by news organizations”. The proposed draft by Legislator Hsieh, Kuo-Liang (KMT-Keelung) even included “the collection of personal data for the purpose of question and answer session of the Legislative Yuan” in the exemption clause. That who will supervise the personal date collected by news organizations and legislators in the name of “public interest” is the most worrisome issue here. How will the personal data be protected in this media-frenzied environment of 24-hour news program and with the abuse of Legislators’ exemption from the opinions they express? This issue is not merely as “just a failure to notify the persons being affected” as explained by Legislator Hsieh, Kuo-Liang; the damage it might cause will never be compensated by the “moral and legal responsibility of Legislators”.

If these fundamental principles and problems are left unaddressed, the first to be amended is the title of this proposed amendment to Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act because it contradicts the purpose of personal data protection.