EVENT

Digital Dystopia: Surveillance, Manipulation, and the Erosion of Civil Liberties

On February 21, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) Global Innovation Hub hosted a panel discussion titled "Digital Dystopia: Surveillance, Manipulation, and the Erosion of Civil Liberties." Experts examined online platform regulations, AI governance, data privacy, and state surveillance, with a focus on the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Taiwan’s regulatory landscape.

Speakers included Hui-Chieh Su, Associate Professor at NTU College of Law, Zoë van Doren, Policy Advisor at FNF, Jürgen Bering, Lawyer and Project Coordinator at the Society for Civil Rights e.V. (GFF), Yu-Hsiung Lin, Professor at NTU College of Law, Kuan-Ju Chou, Deputy Director at Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR), and Simone Ruf, Lawyer and Case Coordinator at GFF.

Content Moderation, Disinformation, and Free Speech

The discussion compared Germany’s approach to content moderation under the DSA, highlighting the challenge of balancing free speech with curbing harmful content. While the DSA aims to mitigate systemic risks such as election disinformation, enforcement remains weak. Cases like GFF vs. X (formerly Twitter) underscored concerns over non-compliance with child protection and transparency rules.

Taiwan, in comparison, lacks a comprehensive framework like the DSA, instead relying on laws such as the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (POERA) and the Fraud Crime Hazard Prevention Act (FCHPA). However, panelists warned that notification-based content take downs could lead to government overreach and collateral censorship. The debate also touched on the erosion of anonymity and the financial pressures on platforms due to advertising restrictions. Public opinion polls indicate strong support for direct government intervention in regulating political disinformation, suggesting momentum for legislative action.

Surveillance Technologies & Privacy Risks

Prof. Yu-Hsiung Lin provided an overview of modern surveillance technologies, including IMSI capture, facial recognition (FRT), and AI-driven data fusion. Taiwan’s Communication Security and Surveillance Act was recently amended to mandate network traffic retention, but transparency mechanisms remain weak, as authorities are not required to notify individuals when accessing their data. Panelists voiced concerns over intelligence agencies' unchecked data collection and the lack of a dedicated data protection authority to hold telecommunication companies accountable.

In Germany, authorities increasingly deploy surveillance tools before establishing clear legal frameworks, raising concerns about wrongful accusations due to AI-driven analysis. Lawyer Simone Ruf introduced Germany’s “quick freeze” approach, where courts determine data retention periods on a case-by-case basis, ensuring stricter oversight and minimizing privacy risks.

The Path Forward for Taiwan

While Taiwan currently lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework such as DSA, panelists acknowledged the need for tailored legislation to address both disinformation and surveillance oversight. The discussions emphasized that digital governance should balance protecting civil liberties with mitigating systemic risks such as election disinformation.

The event concluded with a consensus that perfect regulation is unrealistic, but continued dialogue and informed policy making are essential. As technology evolves, legal frameworks must adapt to ensure that national security violating digital rights.