跳到主要內容

發表文章

Across Taipei's Invisible Wall

Most of you will know that I recently moved, from Yuquan to Guangfu. A few streets, from one Taipei into another. For years I lived in Yuquan ( 玉泉里 ), on the southern edge of Dadaocheng ( 大稻埕 ). I now live in Guangfu ( 光復里 ), inside the old walls of Taipei City ( 臺北城 ). No river crossed, no hill climbed: only a few streets east. Yuquan is warehouses, hardware, spare parts, wholesalers and old family firms. Its streets still obey the Tamsui River ( 淡水河 ): goods arrive, change hands, acquire credit and move on. Guangfu is gates, government offices, public markets, hotels, bookshops, banks, schools and pork-chop rice served to people whose lunch break has an ending. Both belong to western Taipei ( 臺北西區 ); both are sold as "the old city". They are not old in the same way. Yuquan grew around goods and private capital; Guangfu around files, public authority and salaries. The map shows a short walk. The city shows a river port and a city gate, merchants and mandarins, inheri...
最近的文章

The price of waiting: what Taiwan’s AI law reveals about regulatory uncertainty

As Taiwan advances its proposed Artificial Intelligence Basic Act, the debate has largely focused on familiar themes: ethics, principles, and the need for “responsible AI”. These questions matter. But they are not the most consequential ones. The more important issue is economic rather than moral. It concerns how law structures expectations, how uncertainty is distributed, and how delay becomes a rational response when judgement is deferred. Taiwan’s AI legislation offers a revealing case study in the political economy of regulatory uncertainty — and in the costs of asking markets to decide first. At a symbolic level, the Basic Act marks a clear shift. Artificial intelligence is no longer treated merely as a technical input or an industrial productivity tool, but as an object of public governance. Its deployment is recognised as having implications for legal responsibility, administrative authority and decision-making frameworks. Yet symbol and structure are not the same. The law’s...

當法律跑在能力前面,執法就變成賭局

When law outruns capability, enforcement becomes a gamble. 歐盟最新提出的「數位綜合方案」,將原本預計自 2026 年起陸續落地的 AI Act 高風險義務整體延後,並對 GDPR 的若干適用標準作出調整。這一系列時間表與技術條文的修改;從法制運作角度看,其實是歐盟試圖重新修正過去幾年高度前傾的監管節奏。核心訊息很直接: 當規範在行政能力、標準體系與產業準備都尚未到位時提前生效,制度本身便會成為新的風險來源,同時對 法律確定性(Rechtssicherheit)與可執行性(Vollzugstauglichkeit)產生損害。 過去十年,歐盟在數位領域採取的是一套高度主動的立法模式:先以框架性規範設定邊界,再透過技術標準、指引與執法實務慢慢填補細節。GDPR、DMA、DSA 乃至 AI Act 無不如此。這樣的作法在政治上具有明顯的宣示效果,也強化了歐盟作為「規則輸出者」的角色。但在 AI 與資料治理領域,這種先立架構、後補能力的路線,逐步暴露出其結構性限制: Regelungsdichte(規範密度)可以很高,Vollzugskapazität(實際執行能力)卻未必能跟上。 AI Act 的高風險義務便是一個典型例子。法條要求涵蓋技術文件完整性、訓練資料可追溯性、模型行為監測機制、風險管理流程等多重層面,每一項都假設存在一套成熟的標準體系與行政審查機制。然而,相關技術標準仍在制定過程中,各國主管機關的準備度明顯不一,企業端也尚未形成穩定的 best practice。在這樣的條件下,法規若在原定時程強行生效,實務上極易出現「義務已存在,但合格標準與審查方式未臻明確」的狀態。 對企業而言,這意味著法規遵循被迫建立在猜測之上:不知道做到何種程度才足以被認定為合規,卻必須提前調整內部結構與資源配置。對主管機關而言,則是在執法時缺乏穩定的判準,不同成員國之間的差異難以避免。這種情形直接侵蝕了 Rechtssicherheit,使法律本身成為一種額外的不確定性,而不是降低不確定性的工具。從這個角度看,延後義務並非削弱監管,而是試圖讓規範重新落在與現實能力大致相稱的水位,回到 Verhältnismäßigkeit(比例原則)可接受的範圍之內。 GDPR 的調整呈現出相同的邏輯,只是焦點從 AI 行為,轉移到資...

REGULATE ONLY WHAT YOU CAN ENFORCE

The EU’s Digital Omnibus signals a critical pivot: admitting that premature regulation endangers the very certainty it seeks to create. The European Union’s introduction of the "Digital Omnibus" package—which proposes delaying key high-risk obligations under the AI Act and recalibrating GDPR standards—is more than a mere adjustment of timetables. From the perspective of legal operations, it represents a structural correction to a regulatory rhythm that has become dangerously front-loaded. The core message from Brussels is blunt: when regulations enter into force before administrative capacity, technical standards, and industrial readiness are established, the institution itself becomes a source of risk. Instead of fostering order, premature regulation simultaneously damages Legal Certainty ( Rechtssicherheit ) and Executability ( Vollzugstauglichkeit ) . The Structural Deficit: Density vs. Capacity For the past decade, the EU has pursued a hyper-active legislative model: set...

When Punishment Becomes a Misplaced Institution

A Critical Examination of Copyright Criminalization from the Perspectives of Human Rights Law, Institutional Economics, and Legislative Legitimacy In the legal architecture of intellectual property, copyright has long been regarded as the cornerstone of the creative incentive regime. Its institutional purpose was originally rooted in the provision of exclusive rights as a mechanism to ensure economic reward for creators, thereby stimulating cultural production. However, when copyright protection shifts from being an incentive-based private right to a justification for the exercise of state punitive power, the normative foundation of the system becomes destabilized. What was designed as a private right is then recoded as a matter of public order, demanding criminal enforcement. This dual posture—civil exclusivity on the one hand, and criminal sanction on the other—leads to a deep structural tension between private appropriation and public punishment, thereby violating the proportionalit...

Does Everyone's Opinion Carry Equal Weight?

On Anti-Scam Policy, Game Dynamics, and the Inescapability of Roles in Governance In aerial yoga, the moment of highest injury risk comes not from complexity but from transition—when the center of gravity shifts, the anchor point wavers, and the suspension angles falter. The entire system begins to twist, pull, and if poorly caught, descend into freefall. Aerial yoga is not merely about movement—it is the art of distributing force, transferring risk, and sustaining grace in suspension without collapse. So it is with public policy. I’ve previously discussed Nash equilibrium and the common practice of stakeholder analysis among policy professionals. Often, we see quadrant diagrams plotting platforms, governments, businesses, and users onto influence matrices. But in real governance, stakeholders do not exist on a flat plane—they are suspended in a multidimensional web. The key question is not "who speaks" but "whose failure to act will cause the structure to collapse....

Deep Packet Inspection: Legal Boundaries and Global Experiences

  I. Background With the rapid advancement of digital technologies, cybercrime has become increasingly rampant, encompassing threats such as online fraud, hacking, and cyberterrorism. These developments pose unprecedented challenges to public safety. Traditional investigative tools—such as wiretapping or subpoenaing user data—have limited effectiveness against encrypted communications, anonymous networks (like the dark web), and transnational criminal organizations. To meet these challenges, law enforcement agencies have increasingly looked to emerging technologies to enhance investigative capabilities. One of the most prominent tools in this regard is Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) —a technique that allows for detailed inspection and analysis of data packets traversing a network. DPI Capabilities and Controversies DPI enables authorities to analyze the content and metadata of internet traffic in real time. It can detect malware, identify suspicious communication patterns, and trace ...