The President gave them a trophy. The trophy carries no prize money, but it contains a projector. You can turn it on and project the president. It carries the presidential promise of implementing their idea in the next year. We now have our first pilot case of a genuine open ...

During, I think, the second round, they showed this presentation saying, “We predict that in the next two months, these will be at risk.” At the Presidential Hackathon demo day, one of them actually gets reported as having this illicit behavior. So I think this showed a real promise of ...

In our Presidential Hackathon a couple months ago, a cross-sectoral team built a machine learning system that looks at these issues and numbers which could be uncorrelated to a human eye. Then they also, with land prize and everything, and they trained an AI model to predict in the next ...

Incidentally, it’s about beneficial ownership. It’s using data about companies’ operation, land, trade, things like that, to detect what we call 詐貸. How do we translate that to English? A fraudulent loan, maybe. A company sets up with two sibling, conspiring companies. They trade something that’s worthless as $1 billion, ...

I think that is the balance between not compromising the legal operators’ positions, as well as helping to detect illicit or fraudulent cases. I will be honest in saying that this is so new that we only so far have one case, a pilot case, starting to use this.

We’re not publishing the raw data at all. Usually, we just take those algorithm and have our experts audit that it doesn’t compromise privacy for people who abide by the law. Then we run the algorithm internally, in our data center, without sharing any raw data. We could publish the ...

OPAL is designed such that you can write code, algorithms, that given what we will say synthetic data. That is to say, not real data, but you can learn about the data’s shape, like GPS, date, and so on, but none of this real. Based on this data, you can ...

The second thing is that if an agency in charge by law for regulating industry, we have a fiduciary-ish duty for people, for commercial operators who put their data to us to entrust, essentially, their data to us. To provide accountability without compromising their normal and legal operation, there’s a ...

First, that if we have shared the same values, such as the ones that you just mentioned, it’s easier if we first agree on the values, instead of the implementations, which is why I asked for the list of conditions and the necessary data to detect those conditions.

When co-designing G2C accountability, my personal experience is twofold.

What Mr. Lin is talking about is that we have a really good accountability mechanism between governments. Like our government, other governments, they are now in a very high-resolution data sharing relationship. What they are talking about is essentially government-to-citizen accountability, which is another thing altogether.

Right.

Indeed, our PDIS colleagues saw the Fisheries Agency dashboard system a few months ago. It’s very, very impressive.

They essentially crowd-source that capacity.

Sure. What we’re talking about is that, if they’re within legal areas of operation, and they’re not trans-shipping, we really shouldn’t ask them to publish anything, right? That’s the position that I just outlined.

That’s right. That will also make our job easier as well, if legislators start asking about this. We will say, “This is already a fair and balanced conversation.” If we send a draft bill, it’s already after talking to all the stakeholders. Usually, in shapes like this, it’s easier for ...

The necessary data for the necessary conditions.

When it goes to the MPs, who have constituents, they will look at it and say, “Is this absolutely necessary?” and things like that.

Right, and buildings. It’s all about just social norm. If the social norm thinks that 50 numbers is a good balance, then it’s very hard for legislators to push into specific numbering, even though the administration takes the position that our draft says it’s specific to the street numbering.

People feel a bit more comfortable in doing so. We understand, for example, in the US, quite a few states publish in the aggregate. There are also states publish down the street number. It’s all about co-designing the social norms…

I think for real-time land ownership price declaration, our current legislation is that it’s aggregated within 50 numbers. You know that which block this transaction happened and the real price. The price is not in the aggregate, but a spatial domain is in the aggregate.

Right, because that will be, if the people who practice fishing takes it to the court, the court will say that it’s beyond the necessary means to fulfill a policy or a legal goal. Just narrowing it down would be really helpful.

If you can demonstrate for trans-shipping that there really is no alternative other than using VMS data to just couple the two ships together, then we can argue that maybe it’s good to flag those cases and the general coordinates a few days after this happens. Without revealing the whole ...

Then we can start talking about whether they conform to the purpose of our bylaws. Based on the purpose of the bylaws and the IUU watchlist removal procedure that we just went through, if we can identify a clear, not just good-to-have, but necessary means to fulfill those common values. ...

Right. Maybe publish whenever a vessel is closing in with another vessel? It’s easier if you can clearly spell out the public benefit conditions under which revelation of the coordinates – or not coordinates, but relative coordinates – is useful.

If they are legally operating, they shouldn’t incur the extra burden. Of course, if they are legally operating, there won’t be as much risk for piracy, either. Then it’s hard to argue that the public benefit then outweigh the privacy concerns.

Right. It’s about geofencing. As long as they are within geofence, perhaps you would only have to know that they are within the geofence. Do you know what I am talking about?

Yeah, for the data.

I totally agree. Two things. You talk about a reduced resolution in time. What about reduced resolution in space? Just how precise would you like for the…

It’s an anti-piracy measure.

In a mandatory fashion.

Which is opt-in at the moment, right? I don’t know how many countries…

Just a second. Would you like everything the VMS collects, or are there particular indicators or particular patterns that you would like to see published?

Yes. I think the smaller ones don’t have…

Like the VDR is not ubiquitous?

Personally, I am all for it. I am just saying that our legislators usually take this strategy when it comes to international obligations.

A norm, that’s right.

Usually, we participate exactly probably at the median point of where everybody else is committing to this. We totally agree that if this is an international norm, then we will follow through and change accordingly, if needed.

Actually, for beneficial ownership, that’s a really good example. Even the advocates like the UK, they have two years or something of a sunrise period for that information to get published. For procurement data, I think, outside of the WTO, there’s a very long sunrise period as well.

Usually, the concern is that if we do this unilaterally, without every other participating country doing it, then we are at a disadvantage from multiple angles. If it’s now an international norm, that everybody is starting to publish the same thing…

That’s right.

It is easier to start thinking about laws but without actually putting out drafts.

The key here is that it’s not personal data, as defined by our Personal Data Protection Act. Our PDPA says wherever we asked someone to provide their real name in a publicly-consumable manner without any prior contract or relationship, then it need to be mandated by a law. We cannot ...

Right, we could do it at the regulation level.

For this one, for the numbering, just like the real price registration, 實價登錄, this is not about a person, so it’s totally OK to publish it without modifying the law. It could be just a regulation or a policy.

No, right?

Sure. Currently, do we publish the name of the person?

It’s exactly the same as international beneficial ownership tracking, the Panama Papers and all.

You don’t have to pay a royalty, or sign some no-harm agreement, or whatever. That’s our preferred solution to the issues such as this.