Where Do Massive Wiretaps Go?

Steven D. Levitt, a popular American economist, once proposed a statistical conclusion: as the number of police officers (diligent and honest ones) increases, the number of criminal suspects apprehended will increase accordingly. A communications surveillance system is like secretly installing a sensitive police officer inside people's communication devices, accurately recording the sounds and texts exchanged between communicators, while missing no background noises or locations. Operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it is practically more miraculous than clairvoyant and clairaudient deities. Therefore, the Grand Justices specifically warned judges in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 631 that wiretapping infringes upon people's fundamental rights more intensely and extensively than search and seizure, and is difficult to check in real time; thus, judges should conduct strict reviews before granting approval. Since wiretaps are so miraculous, assuming that the executing law enforcement officers possess above-average dedication, an increase in wiretap cases and lines should logically lead to an increase in newly received investigation cases, persons under investigation, and apprehended suspects.

According to data from the Judicial Yuan, the total number of communications surveillance applications accepted by district courts surged to over 59,000 cases last year (2013), representing an increase of nearly 60% compared to 2011 and 2012. The number of approved telephone lines reached as high as 150,000, growing by 50% compared to 2011 and 2012. Furthermore, the number of notices issued to monitored subjects after wiretaps concluded was also about 50% higher than the figures for 2011 and 2012. The sudden explosion in wiretap cases and lines last year reached a historical peak in both growth rate and volume. The courts' average approval rate (including partial approvals) over the past three years has remained at around 85%, with the number of wiretap cases and lines climbing year by year. Referring to the internal regulations of prosecutorial agencies, the investigation period for general cases is eight months, and for major criminal cases, four months. Counting to the two time points of the end of 2013 and the end of June 2014, the vast majority of investigation cases subjected to wiretaps in 2013 should have concluded their investigations, and the effectiveness of the casework should be reflected in the statistical data.

However, comparing this with the statistical data on the Ministry of Justice website, the results are startling. Various data for 2013—such as the number of newly received investigation cases, persons under investigation, criminal suspects, indicted persons, and applications for summary judgments—were slightly higher than in 2012, but the gap was minimal, with the largest difference being less than 3%. The aforementioned data for both 2012 and 2013 were lower than those for 2010 and 2011. The number of "other cases," including those designated with "Ta" (他) characters, has decreased year by year, as have the numbers of suspended prosecutions and discretionary non-prosecutions. In other words, from 2010 to 2013, the number of wiretap cases and lines climbed year by year, yet the number of newly received investigation cases, persons under investigation, and apprehended criminal suspects showed a downward trend.

Analyzing further by case type, a press release issued by the Ministry of Justice on December 20, 2013, indicated that the largest category of wiretap cases approved by the courts was drug offenses, followed in order by corruption, fraud, firearms offenses, organized crime, and intimidation. Comparing this with the statistical data on the websites of the Ministry of Justice and the Agency Against Corruption, the number of indicted persons in fraud cases (including those applied for summary judgment sentencing) decreased year by year from 2011 to 2013. The numbers of indicted persons for drug, firearms, and intimidation offenses (including those sentenced via summary judgment) were all lower in 2013 than in 2011. The number of indicted persons in corruption cases was also lower in 2013 than in 2012. As for organized crime, no data was available. In other words, the statistical data on wiretap case types yielded the same results as the annual statistics: the number of cases and persons apprehended and prosecuted for crimes also showed a downward trajectory.

Looking additionally at the statistics for the first half of the year from January to June, the Ministry of Justice website showed that the number of newly received investigation cases increased by 9.4% compared to the same period last year, and the number of indicted persons (including those applied for summary judgment sentencing) increased by 11.7% compared to the same period last year. However, looking closely at the case types, apart from corruption, the number of indicted persons for all other aforementioned major wiretap case types decreased compared to the same period last year, with the decline exceeding 10% for both fraud and firearms offenses. The category with the largest surge in indicted persons was the crime of driving under the influence, amended and promulgated on January 15 this year, which is the least likely type of case to be pursued using wiretaps. Therefore, the growth in the first-half statistics mentioned above should have nothing to do with wiretapping as an investigative method.

As can be seen from the above, the volume of wiretaps and the number of newly received investigation cases, persons under investigation, and apprehended criminal suspects exhibit contrasting trends. Increased wiretapping not only fails to effectively increase the number of cases and suspects apprehended and prosecuted, but overall, it is heading downward. In particular, despite the explosive surge of wiretaps in 2013, there was no rapid expansion in communication numbers or devices discovered, nor did anyone track, manage, or evaluate the ultimate destination and handling results of wiretap cases, let alone review and formulate corresponding countermeasures. With wiretapping acting like a miraculous tool of this sort, aren't we making a mockery of wiretaps, which possess the character of intense infringement and ultimate resort?