Manage Your Own Phone Number

In recent years, with the proliferation and increasing versatility of mobile phones, related crimes have grown. From the early use of cloned mobile phones as communication tools to the recent transmission of false or harassing information via text messages, many people have been scammed or deeply troubled. Reports indicate that the Directorate General of Telecommunications, intending to regulate telecommunications order and combat illegal activities, plans to work with the Ministry of Justice to amend the Telecommunications Act. They intend to add a mandatory provision requiring all outgoing calls to display the caller ID, which heightens the tension between personal privacy and criminal investigation and defense, raising serious concerns.

From a constitutional perspective, the traditional protection of the confidentiality of communications has centered on ensuring that the content of communications remains free from intrusion. However, in today's digital age, because information can be acquired and utilized more rapidly, the scope of communication secrets—defined as information not known to others—should be expanded to include related information such as "telephone caller ID." This is because, provided there is a sufficiently widespread and affordable caller ID display device, most people can use a phone number to determine the identity of the individual normally using that telephone. Coupled with the fact that telephone use is a frequent and essential tool for transmitting information in modern society, the decision of whether to disclose one's identity or provide related information when using a telephone undoubtedly falls under the fundamental human rights protected by the Constitution, according to modern social concepts.

To curb potential criminal behavior by certain individuals, requiring all users of telephone equipment to be forced to display their phone numbers to facilitate investigations is problematic—putting aside whether the starting point of viewing telephone users as potential criminals is appropriate or not. When examined simply through the public law principle of "proportionality," numerous issues arise: First, can this truly eradicate crime? Individuals with malicious intent still have various ways to evade the tracing of outgoing calls, such as unauthorized use, pirated calls, or roundabout forwarding. Second, the volume of normal, everyday telephone communications is clearly far greater than unlawful criminal purposes. The practice of universally and mandatorily disclosing caller IDs will infringe upon the privacy of the majority of normal users who do not wish to reveal their identity information, and is by no means an optimal solution with minimal harm. While it might conceivably help track down some crimes, it ultimately cannot conceal the harm inflicted on the basic principles of a constitutional state, akin to "using a cannon to shoot a bird."

In particular, modern democratic states governed by the rule of law place importance on maximizing the "transparency" of information held by the state, rather than doing the opposite by demanding through legislation that information held by the people be continually surrendered to the state. This causes the private sphere of citizens to retreat step by step, leaving them perpetually exposed to the danger of being monitored or spied upon. Furthermore, when the administrative direction of the state touches upon the fundamental rights of the people, public authority should essentially step back and exercise restraint, restricting fundamental rights only under exceptional circumstances. However, forcing individuals to disclose telecommunication information such as caller IDs to unspecified persons under the pretext of criminal investigation and defense not only violates the aforementioned principle of "protecting personal information," but also embodies the fallacy of putting the cart before the horse and infringing upon human rights. Consequently, society suffers harm before reaping any benefits. What kind of good governance or benevolent intention can be found in such a measure?

In fact, various telecommunications operators are already actively cooperating with the requests of prosecutors, police, and investigative agencies to track users of illicitly used equipment and provide evidence to assist in case investigations. Under such circumstances, is it still necessary to forcibly compel everyone to disclose the phone numbers they use? Can the new government, which repeatedly champions the establishment of a nation founded on human rights, not yet grasp the wisdom of "knowing what to do and what not to do"?

※ Published in: Liberty Times