Regarding Mirror Media’s recent article criticizing Ko Wen-je for selling students’ personal data to Google—apparently triggering hordes of netizens attacking the media—“A Response to Mirror Media.”
Honestly, on this matter, most people seem to have lost interest in rational discussion simply because the criticized person is “Ko Wen-je.” They just want to yell curses, cite weak examples like “I use GMail too,” and declare the whole media outlet beyond redemption.
Is this the proper way to discuss issues, or do you just want to get excited seeing blood spilled? Ko-protective fanatics reappear after so long. These people usually pose as morally superior, serve the white-collar class, yet the moment a news story breaks, they bite down on the entire media outlet claiming it’s hopeless—this closely resembles Nazi fanatics, and unfortunately such witch-hunts under the guise of high intellect seem increasingly common as populism gains traction these past years.
Regardless of the contract contents between Google and Taipei City government (nobody reads it anyway), everyone seems to have forgotten how many Google privacy issues affecting the public have sparked widespread discussion over the past decade. Not to mention Google getting exposed for handing data to the FBI and CIA, or Google Mail’s unreasonable privacy terms forcing users to accept problematic data usage rights—Google was criticized extensively. But now because it’s Ko Wen-je doing it, everyone forgot their own privacy rights are equally precious.
❓ The Key Question: Why Can’t Taiwan Use Consent Forms?
America requires Google to let students sign consent forms first—why can’t Taiwan?
Regarding why Taiwan can’t, the answer seems already hinted in Mirror Media’s other statistical survey.
The survey’s second question asks if people knew about Taipei City’s plan to share privacy-sensitive data with Google; the fourth asks whether Taipei City government should require parental consent signatures. For the first question’s answer: 99% said they didn’t know. For the second: 99% said no consent needed. These questions form a pair; current valid respondents exceed 40,000. Plainly stated: 40,000 people abandoned their right to know, surrendered their bodies and minds entirely to Ko Wen-je—how is that different from a cult?
The editor certainly uses GMail, uses it more deeply than most Taiwanese. I also don’t think current Gmail privacy-sharing harms individuals, but I’m just tired of people thinking they’re clever yet shooting themselves in the foot—like possessed lunatics flailing because their idol got criticized.
I just want to ask one thing: does Taipei City government or Ko Wen-je possess any right to the personality of 350,000 students? Absolutely not. Then why, when touching sensitive privacy matters, can’t you proactively ask parents for their opinion? Why must Mirror Media get attacked by Taiwan’s portion of residents for pointing this out?
Google can do this in America—why not in Taiwan?
Actually, everyone’s discussing the fundamental problem all wrong. The issue isn’t whether Google will exploit this data commercially (Google’s specific emphasis)—rather, why must we let Google even have access to this data!?
Of course, if everyone agrees Google can do this, editors have nothing to say. But honestly, just admit—you’re upset because Ko got criticized, you can’t bear the shame. Right? (What’s it got to do with you anyway?) This happens often in police stations—scam victims also say they got dizzy from someone touching their shoulder (actually it was greed).
📢 Google’s Statement on This Incident:
Safeguarding user privacy and security has always been our top priority. G Suite for Education services contain no ads and don’t collect or use student data for commercial purposes. On this platform, users own the data, not Google.
Google’s Related Information:
- Over 6 million students, teachers, and education administrators worldwide use G Suite for Education, including schools in America, Britain, Brazil, Japan, India, Thailand, and more.
- G Suite for Education complies with America’s “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),” and our implementation standards explicitly follow these regulations.
- For students, teachers, parents, and education administrators, our products and usage are open and transparent.
- All G Suite for Education contracts specify that users own data, not Google. School administrators can terminate service or set restrictions anytime.