Antonio Prokschaby Antonio Prokscha
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Open Culture Foundation/Facebook
Taiwan’s democracy is increasingly defined by what happens online. As cyberattacks, surveillance, and opaque data practices test the boundaries of digital freedom, the Open Culture Foundation (OCF) works to keep the internet open, transparent, and accountable.
WHEN NANCY PELOSI landed in Taipei in August 2022, her visit sparked not only geopolitical tension but also a surge of cyberattacks. Government institutions, universities, and human rights groups suddenly found themselves under digital siege. Websites were defaced with pro-China propaganda and inboxes filled with phishing emails designed to infiltrate activist networks.
For Chia Shuo Tang, Research Manager at Taiwan’s Open Culture Foundation (OCF), it was a turning point. “At that time, there was a huge wave of state-sponsored digital attacks,” he recalls. “Most targeted public institutions, but civil society organizations became targets too.”
One example of this was the attack on the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, which has long been associated with the country’s democratic history. Its website was hacked and replaced with pro-China messages. “It was a sign that not only institutions, but civil society itself, was becoming a target,” Tang says.
Defending Defenders
FOUNDED IN 2014 from Taiwan’s open-source community, the Open Culture Foundation began as a movement for open software and transparent code. Today, it leads a broader fight for digital rights, online freedom, and tech accountability.
Working with cybersecurity experts and volunteers, OCF trains activists and human rights defenders to secure their digital spaces and offers emergency response during attacks. “Human rights defenders often have very sensitive data but lack IT support,” Tang explains. “We try to fix these systemic gaps through long-term security programs.”
Many attacks are highly sophisticated. “We’ve seen hackers impersonate well-known activists, pretending to organize anti-China petitions,” he says. “It’s a calculated effort to infiltrate networks and collect information.”
“Authoritarian legacy”
BEYOND DIRECT ATTACKS, OCF monitors how digital power is exercised by both the state and corporations. “We look at how the government requests user data from tech companies for law enforcement purposes, and how it requests platforms to take down content,” Tang says.
“On one hand, we want to prevent the private sector from violating users’ basic rights of privacy and freedom of speech. But at the same time, we also look at why the government is intervening in a way that also violates users’ rights.”
He argues that many of Taiwan’s content moderation and surveillance systems still carry an “authoritarian or paternalistic legacy”. Transparency is rare and data privacy concerns are often undermined.
“From a human rights perspective, it’s very problematic,” Tang says. “It assumes full trust in the government not to misuse this power. But efficiency should never come at the expense of accountability and transparency.”
Recent legislative proposals have deepened his concern. Taiwan’s “Fraud Crime Hazard Prevention Act” requires online platforms to monitor and remove potential scam content, while authorities push for direct access to user data to speed up investigations.
The Risk of Overreach
“WE ARE NOT against law enforcement,” Tang stresses. “The problem is the lack of understanding within government agencies about the technical and human rights implications.”
Sometimes, that overreach borders on absurd. Taiwan’s Health Promotion Administration once fined Google for displaying search results related to e-cigarettes—treating user-generated content as company advertising.
“They don’t understand the difference between user content and platform responsibility,” Tang says. “In Europe, there’s a clear framework, the Digital Services Act, with the ‘safe harbor principle’, which defines what platforms are liable for. In Taiwan, we don’t have that.”
Taiwan’s regulatory framework, Tang argues, remains “opaque and fragmented” scattered across ministries with inconsistent approaches and little grounding in international rights standards.
Ministry of Digital Affairs
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF Taiwan’s Ministry of Digital Affairs (MODA) in 2022 initially raised hopes for a more open, participatory approach. “At the beginning, the ministry was very open to consultation and dialogue,” Tang recalls. “They had this participatory attitude that aligned with the civic-tech community.”
Yet in practice, MODA has leaned more toward digital innovation and fostering data-driven economy than addressing related human rights risks. “They see themselves as promoting digital development, not necessarily digital rights,” he explains. “We’re invited to some meetings and can provide feedback, but real policy change remains limited.”
Trading Privacy for Convenience
FOR OCF, its advocacy for open-source infrastructure is also about autonomy. “If the government relies too heavily on foreign proprietary software, it creates dependency,” Tang warns. “That affects national sovereignty and accountability as well. Taking a ‘public money, public code’ approach means citizens can see what’s happening behind the digital public service they are using.”
Despite such warnings, public concern for privacy remains low. “In Taiwan and other East Asian countries, people are often willing to trade privacy for health or safety,” Tang says.
During the pandemic, contact-tracing systems were widely accepted as a necessary public health measure. Now, similar reasoning justifies online surveillance to fight fraud. “The benefits of privacy are intangible compared to economic or social rights,” Tang admits. “You don’t feel what you lose until it’s gone.”
Still, Tang insists data protection is not a zero-sum game: “I’m not against the government having some power to enforce laws online,” he says. “But there must be clear principles, transparency, and independent oversight. Citizens should know how their data is used.”
Rights in a Rapid Race
AS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, digital IDs, and new public data systems accelerate Taiwan’s digital transformation, Tang worries that rights discourse risks being sidelined.
“Everything is about efficiency, innovation, national security,” he says. “There’s less space to talk about rights and values. The fear of being left behind in global competition is so strong that it overshadows these fundamental principles.”
The challenge is both technical and existential. “We’re entering an era where technology decisions shape the very fabric of democracy,” Tang reflects. “If we don’t ensure transparency and accountability now, we risk building systems that could easily be abused.”
Transparency, he emphasizes, is not a zero-sum game. “You can have openness, public scrutiny, and still ensure security,” Tang says. “Defending democracy in the digital era isn’t about technology alone – it’s about culture, education, and vigilance. Because digital freedom is, ultimately, human freedom.”