Taiwan's Artificial Intelligence Basic Act establishes a national framework for the government's promotion and oversight of artificial intelligence, naming the National Science and Technology Council as the central AI competent authority and the special municipality, county, or city governments as the local competent authority, and creating an Executive Yuan-convened National AI Strategic Committee.
Article 4 sets seven governing principles, including privacy protection and data governance, cybersecurity and safety, transparency and explainability, and fairness and non-discrimination, for the government to apply while developing an AI risk taxonomy and risk-based management regulations under Article 16.
Apart from Article 5, under which an AI product or system that a central competent authority identifies as a high-risk application must come with advisory notices or warnings, the Act does not itself impose a directly enforceable disclosure, labeling, or risk-classification duty on a developer or deployer; Article 18 gives the government two years from the Act's effective date to bring existing laws into conformity with it or to enact the implementing rules its principles call for, so a specific compliance duty for a given AI activity currently rests with whatever sector regulation the government adopts under that mandate rather than with this Act's own text.
This 20-article framework act sets the government's guiding principles for AI development and application (Article 4: sustainable development and well-being, human autonomy, privacy protection and data governance, cybersecurity and safety, transparency and explainability, fairness and non-discrimination, and accountability), designates the National Science and Technology Council as the central AI competent authority with local governments at the municipal or county level (Article 2), and directs the Ministry of Digital Affairs to build a risk taxonomy and assessment framework that sector regulators use to write risk-based management regulations (Article 16).
For high-risk AI application, Article 17 directs the government to clarify liability attribution and establish relief, compensation, or insurance mechanisms, rather than creating those mechanisms itself. Article 5 provides that an AI product or system identified as a high-risk application by a central competent authority for the relevant industry, in consultation with the Ministry of Digital Affairs, shall come with advisory notices or warnings.
Article 18 gives the government two years from this Act's effective date to bring existing law into conformity with it or enact rules it requires, so a crawler or training-data, agent-transaction, or automated-decision duty for a specific AI activity, and any disclosure or labeling duty beyond the Article 5 warning, is not yet a duty this Act itself imposes. The Act provides that it takes effect from the date of its promulgation. It was promulgated on .
Under Article 13 of the Central Regulation Standard Act, a law that takes effect from its promulgation takes effect from the third day counting from the day of promulgation.
Taiwan's Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) is a single omnibus statute covering both government and non-government agencies' collection, processing, and use of personal data, enforced since an October 2025 amendment by an independent Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) rather than by sector regulators.
The Act requires one of several stated lawful bases before collecting, processing, or using personal data, imposes heightened bases for a narrower category of sensitive data (medical, healthcare, genetic, sex-life, physical-examination, and criminal-record data) that does not extend to biometric identifiers as such, and gives a non-government agency an additional lawful basis to process data obtained from publicly available sources without exempting that data from the Act's other duties.
A breach must be notified to the data subject and, where the circumstances fall within a specified reporting scope, to the competent authority; cross-border transfer by a non-government agency may be restricted by the competent authority only in four stated circumstances; and both administrative fines and, for the Act's core violations, criminal penalties and a private civil remedy back the regime.
Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法) Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan), pcode I0050021, as amended effective Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan), Ministry of Justice, official English translation
In force since .Binds public and private bodies.
What this law does
The PDPA requires government and non-government agencies alike to collect and process personal data only for a specific purpose and on one of the bases the Act states (Articles 15, 16, 19, 20), notify the data subject when personal data held has been stolen, altered, damaged, lost, or leaked and, in specified circumstances, report the incident to the competent authority (Article 12), and implement security and maintenance measures to prevent theft, alteration, damage, loss, or leakage of personal data files (Article 20-1).
Since an amendment effective , the Act's competent authority is the Personal Data Protection Commission, an independent agency, which supervises government agencies through periodic and ad hoc audits (Articles 21-1 through 21-5) and may inspect a non-government agency it deems likely to violate the Act (Article 22).
A non-government agency is civilly liable for injury caused by an unlawful collection, processing, or use of personal data (Article 29), with a statutory minimum of NT$500 per data subject per incident where actual damages cannot be readily shown, and 20 or more affected data subjects may delegate a lawsuit to an incorporated foundation or charity (Article 34).
Taiwan has no scraping-specific statute; open-web crawling of a public, unauthenticated page is reached, if at all, by general law written for other purposes. The Criminal Code's computer-security chapter criminalizes defeating a password, protective measure, or system loophole to access a computer, but does not on its own text reach access that defeats none of those barriers.
The Copyright Act's general fair-use standard, not a dedicated text-and-data-mining exception, governs whether collecting or training on copyrighted text is exploitable, and the Fair Trade Act's residual unfair-competition clause is the closest Taiwan comes to a misappropriation doctrine for systematic reuse of another's content or compiled data.
No sui generis database right, no dedicated statute addressing robots.txt's legal weight or AI-training-specific crawling, and no reported case law on browsewrap or clickwrap Terms of Service enforceability specifically for scraping were located in the primary sources checked; each remains an open question under Taiwan's general contract and unfair-competition law rather than a settled, scraping-specific rule.
Chapter 36 criminalizes gaining access to another's computer or related equipment by entering another's password, cracking its protective measures, or exploiting a system loophole without cause (Article 358); obtaining, deleting, or altering another's computer data without cause and causing injury (Article 359); interfering with another's computer or related equipment through a computer program or other electromagnetic method without cause and causing injury (Article 360); and making a program specifically to commit one of those offenses (Article 362).
Offending against a public office's computer increases the punishment by up to one half (Article 361), and prosecution of the Article 358 through 360 offenses proceeds only upon the victim's complaint (Article 363).
Article 358 reaches access only by entering another person's password, cracking the protective measures for using the computer, or exploiting a loophole of the computer system, but Articles 359 and 360 contain no password, protective-measure, or loophole element and turn instead on acting without reason and causing injury to the public or another.
No commencement clause for the act of that added the chapter has been located, and no day on which the chapter came into force has been located.
Copyright Act (著作權法), Arts. 65, 91Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan), Ministry of Justice, official English translation
In force.Binds public and private bodies.
What this law does
Article 65 makes fair use of a work a general defense to infringement of economic rights, judged on all the circumstances and in particular the purpose and character of the exploitation (including whether commercial or nonprofit educational), the nature of the work, the proportion exploited relative to the whole, and the exploitation's effect on the work's current and potential market value.
The Act sets no dedicated text-and-data-mining exception or machine-readable opt-out mechanism separate from this general standard, so a bulk-collection or model-training use of copyrighted text is tested by the same case-by-case Article 65 balancing as any other use.
Unauthorized reproduction infringing another's economic rights is punishable under Article 91 by up to three years imprisonment and/or a fine up to NT$750,000, rising to imprisonment of six months to five years and a fine of NT$200,000 to NT$2,000,000 where the reproduction is made with intent to sell or rent; Article 91 states that personal reference use or fair use of a work does not constitute infringement.
The Act provides that it takes effect from the date of its promulgation, apart from the exceptions it lists. The last revision of the whole Act was promulgated on . Under Article 13 of the Central Regulation Standard Act, a law that takes effect from its promulgation takes effect from the third day counting from the day of promulgation.
Article 25 is a residual general clause: beyond the Fair Trade Act's other named prohibitions, no enterprise may engage in deceptive conduct, or conduct that is obviously unfair and capable of affecting trading order. The Fair Trade Commission, the Act's named competent authority, may order an enterprise violating Article 25 to cease, rectify, or take corrective action, and may separately impose an administrative penalty of NT$50,000 to NT$25,000,000 (Article 42).
The Act provides that it takes effect from the date of its promulgation, except Articles 10 and 11, which take effect thirty days after promulgation. The full revision was promulgated on . Under Article 13 of the Central Regulation Standard Act, a law that takes effect from its promulgation takes effect from the third day counting from the day of promulgation.
Taiwan's primary cyber-resilience statute, the Cyber Security Management Act (資通安全管理法, Cyber Security Management Act, pcode A0030297), was replaced in full on and took effect under the Ministry of Digital Affairs (MODA) as competent authority.
Chapter III binds a 'Specific Non-Government Agency,' a term the Act defines to mean 'a critical infrastructure provider, a government-owned enterprise, a designated foundation, or any enterprise, organization, or institution under control of the government' (Art. 3(6)), with a critical infrastructure provider's own class turning on the Executive Yuan's periodic designation of a physical or virtual asset, system or network whose disruption would significantly affect national security, the public interest, daily life or economic activity (Art. 3(7)-(8)).
Every such agency must formulate, implement and report on a cyber security maintenance plan matched to a government-assigned responsibility level, appoint a dedicated Chief Information Security Officer, and submit to periodic audits (Arts. 7-8, 20-23, 30), and must separately maintain a notification and response mechanism and report a cyber security incident to the sector's own central competent authority as soon as it becomes aware of one (Arts. 24, 29).
Because a designated critical infrastructure provider is precisely the cross-sector essential-infrastructure-operator shape this corpus's activity vocabulary expresses through its general essential-service-operator role rather than through any single sector flag, both duties are flagged here; the Act's other named classes, a government-owned enterprise, a nationwide foundation, or a government-controlled enterprise, are named in each instrument's own description of who is bound rather than flagged, because government ownership as such is not an activity or role this corpus's vocabulary currently expresses.
Articles 11 and 27 separately bar a government agency, or a specific non-government agency the central competent authority so restricts, from downloading, installing or using a product the competent authority has determined poses a risk of harm to national cyber security; this is a procurement and use restriction running to the operator itself rather than a design, support-period or vulnerability-handling duty running to a product's manufacturer, so it is named here rather than treated as a product-security-requirements instrument.
Article 33 confirms that where a cyber security incident under this Act involves a personal data breach, the matter is additionally governed by the Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法, pcode I0050021); that Act's own Article 20-1 duty, that 'Non-government agencies possessing personal data files shall implement security and maintenance measures to prevent the theft, alteration, damage, loss, or leakage of personal data,' is this jurisdiction's privacy-topic finding rather than restated here, and has not yet been researched under that topic as of this writing.
A second, sector-specific duty sits in the Telecommunications Management Act (電信管理法, pcode K0060111, enacted 2019, most provisions effective ): Article 15 requires a telecommunications enterprise that has established a public network using allocated telecommunications resources, or another enterprise the competent authority separately announces, to draw up and implement an info-communications security maintenance plan, and Article 42 separately lets the competent authority designate all or part of that network as critical telecommunications infrastructure, whose establisher must then draw up and implement a critical telecommunications infrastructure protection plan the competent authority evaluates and may audit.
Both duties transferred from the National Communications Commission to the Ministry of Digital Affairs on , and both carry their own escalating fine on non-compliance (Arts. 76, 79).
A third, financial-sector duty sits in a Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) regulation issued under the Banking Act and four sibling statutes, the Implementation Rules of Internal Audit and Internal Control System of Financial Holding Companies and Banking Industries (金融控股公司及銀行業內部控制及稽核制度實施辦法, pcode G0380218), whose current full-text version was promulgated : Article 24 requires a financial holding company or a bank, credit cooperative, bills finance company or trust enterprise to establish a dedicated information security unit under a Chief Information Security Officer ranked deputy general manager or above, and Article 25 sets that unit's minimum functions, including cyber security protection and incident-response mechanisms.
This regulation sets no fine of its own; a violation is enforced through the administrative-sanction provisions of the parent statutes it is issued under, not independently traced to a specific article.
Taiwan has no enacted law setting security requirements a software product or connected device must meet before or after it is placed on the market; the product-restriction provisions named above run to a designated operator's own use of a product, not to the product's manufacturer, so a product-security-requirements duty is a researched absence.
Taiwan also has no general reasonable-security or information-security-programme statute reaching a business simply because it holds data with no sector or designation gate; the nearest analogue, the Personal Data Protection Act's Article 20-1 security-safeguards duty, is a comprehensive-regime provision that belongs to the privacy topic under this profile's own seam rule, so a general security-baseline duty is likewise a researched absence.
The Cyber Security Management Act's own enforcement rules (資通安全管理法施行細則, pcode A0030303) are confirmed to exist by name, but their substantive content was not independently reviewed, and that gap is recorded as an open question on the affected instruments below. The Regulations Governing the Reporting, Response and Drills for Cyber Security Incidents require a specific non-government agency to report a cyber security incident within one hour after becoming aware of it, under Article 11(1).
The Telecommunications Management Act requires a telecommunications enterprise that cannot provide services because of a disaster or another major incident to announce the suspension and report it to the competent authority, under Article 11(1).
Article 24 of the Financial Supervisory Commission's internal-control regulation for financial holding companies and the banking business requires each to 'establish a dedicated information security unit subordinate to the general manager, which shall not concurrently handle information technology operations or other operations that present a conflict of interest with its duties,' headed by 'a person ranked vice general manager or above, or a person with equivalent responsibilities' serving as Chief Information Security Officer.
That officer 'shall report the overall implementation of information security from the preceding year to the board of directors each year'. Article 25 requires the dedicated unit to take charge of 'the planning, management, and execution of the information security system to manage information security risks' and to build 'mechanisms related to cyber security protection, assessment and response to cyber security intelligence, and reporting of and response to cyber security incidents.'
Arts. 3(6)-(8) 7-8, 20-23 and 30 of the Cyber Security Management Act (資通安全管理法), full-text amendment promulgated (Presidential Order Hua-Zong-Yi-Yi-Zi No. 11400095391), effective Official English translation, Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (law.moj.gov.tw)
In force since .Binds private bodies.
What this law does
Chapter III of the Cyber Security Management Act binds a 'Specific Non-Government Agency,' defined to mean 'a critical infrastructure provider, a government-owned enterprise, a designated foundation, or any enterprise, organization, or institution under control of the government' (Art. 3(6)).
A critical infrastructure provider's own class is defined by reference to 'physical or virtual assets, systems, or networks, the functions of which, once they cease to operate or their performance is reduced, may have a significant impact on national security, social and public interests, people's lives, or economic activities' (Art. 3(7)), a class the Executive Yuan periodically designates.
A critical infrastructure provider 'shall comply with the requirements of their assigned cyber security responsibility levels, appoint dedicated cyber security personnel, and ... formulate, revise, and implement cyber security maintenance plans' (Art. 20, Paragraph 2). Every other specific non-government agency carries the identical duty under Article 21, Paragraph 1.
Every specific non-government agency must also 'appoint a Chief Information Security Officer ... responsible for promoting and overseeing the specific non-government agency's cyber security-related affairs' (Art. 23). A failure to formulate, implement or report on the maintenance plan draws, under Article 30, 'a fine of not less than NT$100,000 and not more than NT$5,000,000 ... for each violation.'
Arts. 15 42, 76 and 79 of the Telecommunications Management Act (電信管理法), enacted , effective for the provisions cited hereOfficial English translation, Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (law.moj.gov.tw)
In force since .Binds private bodies.
What this law does
Article 15 of the Telecommunications Management Act requires that 'Telecommunications enterprises who have established a PSTN using telecommunications resources or other telecommunications enterprises announced by the competent authority shall draw up an info-communications security maintenance plan and implement it accordingly'.
Separately, Article 42 lets the competent authority 'designate the PSTN, in whole or in part, as the critical telecommunications infrastructure,' whose establisher 'shall ... draw up a critical telecommunications infrastructure protection plan' subject to the competent authority's evaluation. Failing the general maintenance-plan duty draws a fine under Article 79 for 'Violating Paragraph 1 of Article 15, where no info-communications security management plan has been drawn up or implemented,'.
Failing the critical-infrastructure protection-plan duty draws a separate, higher fine under Article 76 for a party who 'fails to submit critical telecommunications infrastructure protection plan to the competent authority for approval within the prescribed deadline or fails to implement the approved plan.'
Regulations Governing the Reporting Response and Drills for Cyber Security Incidents (資通安全事件通報應變及演練辦法), full-text amendment issued (Ministry of Digital Affairs Order Shu-Shou-Zi-Fa-Zi No. 1145000415), Arts. 11 and 13Official English translation, Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (law.moj.gov.tw)
In force since .Binds private bodies.
What this law does
The Regulations are prescribed under Article 24(4) of the Cyber Security Management Act, among other provisions of that Act. Article 24(4) of the Act leaves the necessary items of the reporting and response mechanism, the reporting content and the submission of reports to rules the competent authority prescribes. Article 11(1) of the Regulations requires a specific non-government agency to report a cyber security incident within one hour after becoming aware of it.
Article 13(1) of the Regulations requires a specific non-government agency to complete damage-control or recovery operations within 72 hours of becoming aware of a level 1 or level 2 incident and within 36 hours of becoming aware of a major incident. Article 13(2) of the Regulations requires the agency to submit an investigation, handling and corrective action report within one month after those operations.
The Act defines a specific non-government agency as a critical infrastructure provider, a government-owned enterprise, a designated foundation, or any enterprise, organization or institution under control of the government. Article 29 of the Act punishes a specific non-government agency that fails to report an incident under Article 24(2) with a fine of NT$300,000 to NT$10,000,000. The full-text amendment of took effect on the date of its issuance.
Arts. 24 and 29 of the Cyber Security Management Act (資通安全管理法) full-text amendment promulgated (Presidential Order Hua-Zong-Yi-Yi-Zi No. 11400095391), effective Official English translation, Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (law.moj.gov.tw)
In force since .Binds private bodies.
What this law does
Article 24 requires every specific non-government agency to 'establish notification and response mechanisms for cyber security incidents,' and, 'When specific non-government agencies become aware of a cyber security incident, they shall notify the central competent authority in charge of the relevant sector of the incident'.
Failing that notification duty draws, under Article 29, 'a fine of not less than NT$300,000 and not more than NT$10,000,000,' escalating for continued non-correction past the ordered deadline.
Article 11(1) of the Act requires a telecommunications enterprise that cannot provide services because of a disaster, a penalty imposed by the competent authority or other major incidents to announce the suspension immediately and to report it to the competent authority by the method the authority prescribes. Article 79 of the Act fines a telecommunications enterprise NT$100,000 to NT$1,000,000 for the violations it lists, with a deadline to correct.
Article 79, item 7, covers a violation of Article 11(1) where no immediate announcement has been made or the notified matters are not true at all. The Act's provisions other than Article 52(3) to (7), Article 54, Article 61, Article 22(3), Article 58(1), Article 60 and the parts of Article 89 about Articles 52 and 54 took effect on .
Taiwan has not enacted a dedicated age-verification statute for adult content, a social-media minor-access law, an app-store age-verification requirement, or a named age-appropriate design code.
The closest primary-source instrument located is the Child and Juvenile Welfare and Rights Protection Act, which requires an internet platform provider to adopt protection measures against content harmful to a child's or juvenile's physical and mental health and to restrict or remove such content once notified, without itself prescribing a specific age-verification method.
The communications and broadcasting competent authority must entrust private organizations with establishing content-protection agencies for children's and juveniles' internet use, and an internet platform provider, defined broadly as any provider of internet platform services including storage space, websites, or web-linking services, must establish self-regulatory norms and adopt clear, feasible protection measures against content harmful to a child's or juvenile's physical and mental health (Article 46).
Where the competent authority for the relevant business notifies a platform provider that its content is harmful or that its protection measures are inadequate, the provider must restrict a child's or juvenile's access or browsing, or remove the content beforehand; a provider that fails to do so is fined NT$60,000 to NT$300,000 and ordered to improve within a set period (Article 94).
Article 46-1 separately prohibits anyone from disseminating or transmitting content harmful to a child's or juvenile's physical and mental health on the internet without taking clear, feasible protection measures or cooperating with a platform's protection mechanisms, in a way that makes the content accessible to a child or juvenile. "Children and juveniles" means persons under eighteen (Article 2).
The Act does not itself prescribe a specific age-verification method, leaving the content-classification system, filtering software, and self-regulatory norms to be developed under the competent authority's protection mechanisms. The sections this entry groups came into force on different days.
Taiwan has not enacted a press-publisher neighbouring right, a compelled platform-to-publisher bargaining regime, or a machine-readable text-and-data-mining opt-out mechanism.
What Taiwan's Copyright Act does provide is narrower and more specific: a bare factual news report carries no copyright at all, a person reporting a current event may exploit, within the scope necessary, a work seen or heard in the course of that event, and a newspaper, magazine, or internet transmission may republish commentary on a current event that has already appeared in a newspaper, magazine, or online, unless the original publisher has indicated that republication is not authorized.
Beyond those exceptions and the Act's general fair-use standard, a claim that systematic reuse of another's reporting is unfair would have to proceed, if at all, under the Fair Trade Act's general unfair-competition clause rather than under a dedicated hot-news or misappropriation doctrine.
Copyright Act (著作權法), Arts. 9, 49, 61Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan), Ministry of Justice, official English translation
In force.Binds public and private bodies.
What this law does
Article 9, paragraph 1, subparagraph 4 excludes from copyright protection "oral and literary works for news reports that are intended strictly to communicate facts," so a bare factual news report carries no copyright to begin with. Where a report contains a protected expression, Article 49 lets a person reporting a current event by broadcasting, photography, film, newspaper, or internet exploit, within the scope necessary to the report, whatever work is seen or heard in the course of that event.
Article 61 separately lets a newspaper, magazine, or internet transmission republish, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmit commentary on a current political, economic, or social event that has already appeared in a newspaper, magazine, or on the internet, unless the original publisher has indicated that republishing is not authorized.
Neither provision creates a payment obligation or a registration or designation scheme; each is a copyright exception that either removes the underlying content from protection or permits its republication subject to an opt-out. The Act provides that it takes effect from the date of its promulgation, apart from the exceptions it lists. The last revision of the whole Act was promulgated on .
Under Article 13 of the Central Regulation Standard Act, a law that takes effect from its promulgation takes effect from the third day counting from the day of promulgation.
These areas of law were researched here and no instrument was recorded. Each finding says what the research checked, as of the date under it. It describes our search, not a guarantee that no such law exists.
Digital accessibility law
In Taiwan's People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act, the duties on accessible information and communication fall on government authorities, and the website duty binds public bodies and schools. Article 52 of the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act provides that authorities at every level and the competent authorities for each purpose shall handle a list of services that help persons with disabilities take part in society.
The list includes accessibility of public information, which the third paragraph of article 52 defines as assistive and supplementary measures for citizens with visual, hearing or speech impairments to read, watch, relay or transmit, for those who use Internet, telecommunications, radio or television facilities. The fourth paragraph of article 52 leaves the content, the manner of implementation and the management rules of those measures to each central competent authority for its purpose.
The penalty chapter of the Act, articles 86 to 104-1, contains no sanction for a breach of article 52, 52-1 or 52-2. Article 52-1 requires the central competent authorities to set national accessibility standards for product design and service provision each year and to encourage product manufacturers and service providers to meet them through incentives and certification.
The Accessible Product Design Incentive Measures, made under article 52-1, let the central competent authority reward products that meet national or international standards on accessible design. Article 52-2 requires websites built by governments at every level, their affiliated agencies and schools to pass accessibility testing at the first priority level or above and to obtain a certification badge.
The Regulations for Issuing Web Accessibility Accreditation Badges for Websites of Governmental Agencies and Schools, made under article 52-2, require governments, their affiliated agencies and schools to test their own information service websites and register them with the competent authority. Those website duties are covered on law.ungovr.org in the public-sector accessibility entry for Taiwan.
Article 16 of the Act bars discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities in their rights to education, examinations, recruitment, employment, residence, movement and medical care. Article 86 sets a fine of NT$100,000 to NT$500,000 for a breach of article 16(1). The second paragraph of article 16 provides that operators of public facility venues must not leave persons with disabilities unable to use facilities and equipment on a fair basis or to enjoy their rights.
Article 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act defines those venues by a list. Under article 100, a breach of the second paragraph of article 16 first draws an order to improve within a time limit, and then a fine of NT$10,000 to NT$50,000 and an order to attend a four-hour course. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Implementation Act gives the Convention's provisions that protect the human rights of persons with disabilities the effect of domestic law.
Article 4 of that Act requires governmental agencies at every level to exercise their powers consistently with the Convention. Article 23 of the Telecommunications Management Act lets the competent authority, under the laws that protect the rights of persons with disabilities, guide or designate telecommunications operators to provide the telecommunications services that persons with disabilities need to gain access.
The government subsidizes the necessary cost that a designated telecommunications operator incurs in providing those services or the terminal equipment needed for access. The Public Television Act establishes the Public Television Service Foundation to run the public television station. Article 38 of that Act provides that educational, information and entertainment programs shall take account of the needs of hearing-impaired and visually impaired viewers.
The accessibility rules for public transport operators under article 53 of the Act concern vehicles, stations and transport service arrangements.
As of .
Case law
No current case law for Taiwan AI law
No current case law for Taiwan privacy law
No current case law for Taiwan scraping law
No current case law for Taiwan cybersecurity law
No current case law for Taiwan communications law
No current case law for Taiwan content moderation law
No current case law for Taiwan product and AI liability law
No current case law for Taiwan digital accessibility law
No current case law for Taiwan age gating law
No current case law for Taiwan reuse law
Reporting clocks that run here3 instruments
The instruments whose obligation lines set a deadline for reporting an incident, a vulnerability or a personal-data breach, each deadline read from the sentence that carries it and listed shortest first. The law of Taiwan comes first, then the law of the bodies above it that applies here.
Each flag is one law, and a link to it. Read down the scale: the clocks document's time axis, with the empty stretches shortened so the deadlines sit close. Flags on one line set the same duty at the same deadline, and the laws behind them are named to the right, with what each clock counts from.
The deadlines above on one time axis, shortest at the top. The axis keeps its order and, between neighbors, its proportion, but a stretch with no deadline on it is shortened, so the hour marks on the left are what say how far apart two stations really are. Beside each action, the laws that set it, what each counts from, and a status where the law is not yet in force. The List tab has the same data in full, with the sentences.
Regulations Governing the Reporting Response and Drills for Cyber Security Incidents (資通安全事件通報應變及演練辦法), full-text amendment issued (Ministry of Digital Affairs Order Shu-Shou-Zi-Fa-Zi No. 1145000415), Arts. 11 and 13security law, in force since
The sentences the clocks are read from
Report a cyber security incident in the manner the sector's central competent authority designates within one hour after you become aware of it, and keep updating the report if the incident level changes (Article 11(1) and (2)).
Complete damage-control or recovery operations and notify the sector authority within 72 hours of becoming aware of a level 1 or level 2 incident, or within 36 hours of becoming aware of a major incident (Article 13(1)).
Submit an investigation, handling and corrective action report to the sector authority within one month after those operations, unless the authority agrees to extend the time (Article 13(2) and (3)).
When you cannot provide telecommunications services, in whole or in part, because of a disaster, a penalty imposed by the competent authority or another major incident, announce the suspension immediately (Article 11(1)).
Which of these one incident starts turns on the facts: the incident method works that through. The clocks document draws every clock in the LexLint law library on one axis, with the sentence beside every rung.
AIDrafted with AI
Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made
This page covers the instruments LexLint has researched
to a stage. Instruments named in the law library but not yet researched are
counted in the head and are not listed here. Every entry carries its own
primary source on its note page. This is a research index, not legal
advice.