Written in response to a news report. Facts and law may have changed since the publication date.
CNA reported on October 13, 2026 that New Taipei prosecutors had indicted a social-media figure after he posted another person's criminal judgment screenshot and identifying information during a personal dispute. The reported charges included personal-data offenses. This was an indictment, not a final finding of guilt, and the dispute did not concern recruitment.
An international employer faces a different question when its Taiwan hiring team is asked to add online court results to a candidate's file. A global screening policy may call for a full litigation search, but that instruction does not establish the Taiwan legal basis for collecting or using the results. A judgment's availability and the employer's proposed use require separate analysis.
Criminal records fall under a specific rule
Article 6 of Taiwan's Personal Data Protection Act generally prohibits collecting, processing or using criminal-record data unless a listed exception applies. Those exceptions include express statutory authorization, necessary performance of legal obligations with appropriate safeguards, and information the person has disclosed or that has otherwise been lawfully made public. Written consent is another possible basis, subject to limits; it is not the only one.
The lawful-publication exception matters for court material. The law does not say that every public judgment is unusable. Equally, the existence of a screenshot on a social platform does not establish that all identifying information attached to it was lawfully disclosed. The employer's assessment needs the actual source and information it proposes to retain.
Article 19 contains the ordinary rules for a private organization's collection and processing of personal data, including a route for generally accessible sources. Its opening language expressly excludes Article 6 data. A screening vendor therefore cannot justify collecting criminal-record information solely by pointing to Article 19 and saying it was found online.
Even where an Article 6 exception applies, Article 5 requires respect for the person's rights and good faith. Collection, processing and use must stay within the necessary scope of a specific purpose and have a proper, reasonable connection to that purpose. A permissible source does not settle how much belongs in a hiring file or who needs to receive it.
What the employer asks the candidate to supply
A separate employment rule applies when the company requests information from an applicant or employee. Employment Service Act Article 5(2)(2) prohibits requiring private information that is not necessary for employment. Article 1-1 of its Enforcement Rules expressly includes criminal records and background investigations among private personal-life information. A request must remain necessary for its specific purpose, such as an economic need or protection of the public interest, and reasonably connected to that purpose.
These provisions concern information the employer requires the person to provide. They are not a blanket statutory ban on every independent online search, which still needs assessment under the personal-data rules. Nor do they permit an unrestricted request merely because the same form is used in other countries.
Written consent does not eliminate these limits. Article 6's consent exception does not cover excessive collection or use, restrictions in other laws on relying on consent alone, or consent contrary to the person's will. Asking the candidate to sign a broad authorization therefore leaves the actual purpose and scope to be justified.
Accuracy is also part of the employer's duty. PDPA Article 11(1) requires personal data to be kept accurate and corrected or supplemented proactively or on request. A name match in a search result is not, by itself, reliable identification of a candidate. The source, the connection to that person and the procedural outcome need to support what the hiring file actually says.
Fictional scene
Sources
- CNA, October 13, 2026: reported indictment following social-media publication; no employment dispute or final judgment of guilt reported.
- Personal Data Protection Act, Articles 5, 6, 11 and 19: purpose limits, criminal-record data, accuracy and ordinary collection rules.
- Employment Service Act, Article 5, and Enforcement Rules, Article 1-1: limits on requests for applicants' and employees' private information.
Sources checked: October 15, 2026. The cited provisions are in force; the PDPA's separately pending amendments do not change these cited rules. This is general Taiwan-law information, not a conclusion about the reported prosecution or a particular hiring decision.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Can lawfully public criminal-record data fall within a permitted exception?
- Yes. Personal Data Protection Act Article 6 expressly includes data disclosed by the person or otherwise lawfully made public among its exceptions. The actual disclosure and intended use still need assessment, including Article 5's limits on purpose and necessary scope.
- Does a candidate's written consent permit any background check?
- No. Article 6 limits reliance on written consent where collection or use exceeds the necessary scope of the specific purpose, another law restricts reliance on consent alone, or the consent is contrary to the person's will. Employment law separately restricts requests for private information that is unnecessary for employment.
- Did the October 13 news report establish a rule against employer screening?
- No. It described an indictment over social-media publication during a personal dispute. It was not an employment-screening case or a final finding of guilt. The employment analysis here comes from the cited Taiwan statutes and rules.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.
