JRF Statement Regarding Reports That Prosecutors and Police Consider the Amendments to the Communication Security and Surveillance Act Too Restrictive

In response to the news report last Friday (10th) that some prosecutors and police officers consider the amendments to the Communication Security and Surveillance Act to be too restrictive, the Foundation issues the following statement:

1. The human rights concepts of prosecutors and police must keep pace with the times; they must not readily alarm the public with issues of public safety

Wiretapping severely infringes upon the people's rights to privacy and freedom of communication guaranteed by the Constitution; it should not be employed unless targeted at serious crimes and utilizing the "least restrictive means." Currently, prosecutors and police have unrestricted access to communications records (enabling tracking via cell tower locations), and wiretapping is utilized far more indiscriminately than in countries like the United States and Japan. Taking recent Freeway ETC driving records as an example, if there are already concerns about the state possessing driving records, how much more so for phone calls and communication records that ought to be secret and private? We urge prosecutors and police to modernize their human rights concepts when investigating cases, refine their investigative skills, and avoid overly relying on wiretapping, infringing upon people's rights without any awareness.

2. Opposing "indiscriminate" wiretapping does not mean opposing "appropriate" wiretapping

The civil society version of the draft amendments to the Communication Security and Surveillance Act advocates for the abolition of communication centers and requires simultaneous monitoring rather than "recording everything." The purpose of these measures is to eradicate the current prevalent practice of indiscriminate wiretapping in our country, rather than to reject appropriate and proportionate wiretapping. The current automated "record-everything" wiretapping model used by prosecutors and police—which is essentially "record first, ask questions later"—completely violates the legislative principle of the "least restrictive means" and must be abolished through legal amendments under any circumstances.

3. Implement third-party oversight

Under current law, while wiretapping requires a wiretapping warrant issued by a judge, judges beforehand often only conduct formal reviews and are frequently constrained by time urgency, making it difficult to truly perform a vetting function. Coupled with the extremely ineffective oversight mechanisms during and after the fact, how to simultaneously utilize technological methods for assistance and implement third-party oversight mechanisms is also a key focus of this legal amendment.

Press Contact

Attorney Kao Jung-chih 02-2523-1178