社群網站運用數位足跡的政府監理策略探討－以Facebook在台灣的運作實況為例

Abstract

劍橋分析事件的爆發，監理社群網站利用數位足跡投放針對式廣告的行為日益重要。筆者嘗試透過檢閱文獻釐清探討監理策略應達成的目標，並透過利害關係人訪談瞭解執行的現狀以及可能遭遇的困難。茲簡述發現如下：\n首先，監理策略應該達成保護使用者隱私、保護寡占市場下的使用者權益，與杜絕業者欺罔行為的目標。第二，雖然對於通訊監察的疑慮，應不致構成外界反對政府監理的明顯理由，但是懷疑政府是否有足夠能力執行監理事務。目前監理策略也多停留在立法階段，執行不是幾乎沒有開始，就是還在起步，也導致後續執行與評估的探討幾乎無以為繼。第三，經濟部工業局雖然受命為社群網站的個資法主管機關，基於產業推動優先，與監理任務難以與既有業務相容的現實，監理社群網站的態度趨於被動。第四，仿照歐盟設立資料保護專責機關的芻議，看似解決事權不集中的良方，但也將面臨法制與組織面水土不服、設立初期權限與既有監理機關競合，以及任務如何順暢交接等，組織設計過程也宜審慎思量。\n綜上所述，筆者提出以下建議：首先，政府從事資料治理時，應摒棄效率至上的心態，在日常作業中便應將資料保護完整落實。第二，政府不應拘泥於設立形式或組織上的個資保護專責機關，而是從服務設計與傳遞著手，確保使用者與業者的需求能被立即滿足。第三，雖然本研究尚未證實管制悖論文獻所警示的，監理可能扭曲市場機制，並加劇數位廣告產業壟斷的因果關係是否存在；然而數位廣告的產業的壟斷卻已廣受矚目，筆者認為後續的重點不是繼續論證該關係的存在，而是立即就既成事實盡速研擬對策。

The outbreak of Cambridge Analytica scandal has aggravated the importance of regulating social media exploiting of digital footprint on serving targeted-advertisements. I clarified goals of regulatory strategy by reviewing literature and difficulties of implementation by interviewing stakeholders. Findings are briefly discussed below:\nFirst, a successful regulatory strategy should protect users’ privacy and other rights under oligopoly, and prevent from firms’ deceiving behaviors. Second, even though concerns of government surveillance are not yet to be main reason for opposing regulatory policy, interviewees are skeptical of government’s capability to run them well, and most legislated policies are either not implemented or implemented in initial stage, not ready for further evaluation. Third, though Industrial Development Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs, is in charge of social media’s violation of Personal Data Protection Act, their attitudes toward regulation remain passive since promoting industrial development is their priority. Fourth, even though setting specialized data protection agency as European Union did is regarded as panacea solving problems of fragmented responsibility on data protection, it may not be accustomed to our local legal and organizational practice, including how to cooperate with previous regulatory agency, and how to hand over their mission. These issues may be also crucial to forthcoming organizational design.\nI suggest, first, our government adapt data protection to their daily work, rather than setting efficiency as supremacy. Second, our government should not be rigid in establishing organizational specialized data protection agency; instead they should focus on service design and delivery to accommodate most users and firms’ needs. Third, even though the monopolization of digital advertising industry aggravated by regulation has not yet proved in this work, the phenomenon of monopolization has received wide attention. It’s time for government to solve it instantly rather than sticking on demonstrating their causality.