Skip to content


Tag: rights

Good news today.

A committee of the Legislative Yuan gave initial approval to the proposed new rules to allow foreign employees to take up positions as directors or supervisors of labor unions. The rules, when ratified by the lawmakers, will also permit teachers to organize labor unions.

The China Post: Lawmakers approve new rules to let foreign workers serve as union officials

I remember Scott Sommers writing about unionized foreign teachers in Japan a while back. At the time, I thought it was a bit odd that I’d never heard of anything similar in Taiwan, and now I know the reason- laws. Most teachers here are are a migratory bunch and don’t stay in Taiwan that long, but I think unions still make some sense. In Japan, teachers have open work permits, i.e., once they have a work visa, they can work at any company that will hire them. Here in Taiwan, on the other hand, a foreigners’ permission to work is tied to their employers. Employers definitely have a lot of power here.

Reading the Taipei Times today, I came across an article that highlights yet another aspect in which Japan is returning to its nationalistic roots– education. The education minister, Ibuki Bunmei (伊吹文明), is a reactionary. In various speeches, he has stated that most young Japanese are incapable of writing or speaking well and that they need to “learn the rules of society” in elementary school before spending time on foreign languages. Fair enough. Now, though, he’s pushing into more disturbing territory:
continue reading…

From the time I started writing this blog, my intent has been to make an apolitical blog. Truth be told, I’m not a very political person, and I don’t like politics. There comes a point, though, when I feel I have to take a stand, and my one vote back home isn’t enough. Just continuing to write letters to my representatives isn’t enough. About hundred and fifty people read this blog each day, and from what I can tell from sitemeter, about 40 or 50 are Americans. If I don’t speak up now, it may be hard to forgive myself in the future.
continue reading…

Here’s some news that’s near and dear to my heart. After its last attempt at an anti-porn law was ruled unconstitutional, the US government has demanded information about what users of search engines search for, in order to assist the government make a new law that doesn’t get overturned. Yahoo, MSN, and AOL have complied with the government’s subpeona and handed over countless search queries entered by their users (most of which had nothing to do with porn). On Friday, Google rejected the Department of Justice’s subpoena for the search queries of Google users.

Google users trust that when they enter a search query into a Google search box, not only will they receive back the most relevant results, but that Google will keep private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling reason. The Government’s demand for disclosure of untold millions of search queries submitted by Google users and for production of a million Web page addresses or “URLs” randomly selected from Google’s proprietary index would undermine that trust, unnecessarily burden Google, and do nothing to further the Government’s case in the underlying action.

Fortunately, the Court has multiple, independent bases to reject the Government’s Motion. First, the Government’s presentation falls woefully short of demonstrating that the requested information will lead to admissible evidence. This burden is unquestionably the Government’s. Rather than meet it, the Government concedes that Google’s search queries and URLs are not evidence to be used at trial at all. Instead, the Government says, the data will be “useful” to its purported expert in developing some theory to support the Government’s notion that a law banning materials that are harmful to minors on the Internet will be more effective than a technology filter in eliminating it.

Google is, of course, concerned about the availability of materials harmful to minors on the Internet, but that shared concern does not render the Government’s request acceptable or relevant. In truth, the data demanded tells the Government absolutely nothing about either filters or the effectiveness of laws. Nor will the data tell the Government whether a given search would return any particular URL. Nor will the URL returned, by its name alone, tell the Government whether that URL was a site that contained material harmful to minors.

But the burden is not mechanical alone; it includes legal risks as well. A real question exists as to whether the Government must follow the mandatory procedures of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in seeking Google users’ search queries. The privacy of Google users matters, and Google has promised to disclose information to the Government only as required by law. Google should not bear the burden of guessing what the law requires in regard to disclosure of search queries to the Government, or the risk of guessing wrong.

It’s nice to see at least one company stand up to the spooks and actually consider our rights. This is a very Good Thing. On the other hand, also very disturbing that the government is even trying to get the information. Five years ago, I would have been really surprised to see something like this. On the other hand we didn’t have “Homeland Security” people patrolling around in suburbia back then, either. It doesn’t look like the long slow deterioration of the bill of rights will stop any time soon. First it was the “War on Drugs”, then we got the DCMA. Next came the Patriot Acts and the “War on Terror”. Now the government is spying on our email (via Carnivore), and wants our search queries.

Oh, well… at least I’m not British. There, you get sent to prison if you don’t give the government keys to decrypt your email. Heck, you get sent to prison if you even tell anybody they asked.