Recently, the installation of surveillance cameras at a primary school in Tainan City, which recorded the privacy of neighboring residents, has sparked widespread social attention. A female engineer surnamed Lin argued that the National Compensation Act does not include personality rights and privacy rights, so she filed a lawsuit based on the Civil Code and won in the first instance. However, the Tainan High Court held that privacy rights should be protected by the Constitution and broadened the interpretation of the National Compensation Act, requiring the government to take responsibility for compensation.

The director of our law firm, Lawyer Huang Shihan, also expressed his opinion, affirming the Tainan High Court's view. However, the interpretation of legal provisions can vary from person to person, and it is possible that Ms. Lin's appeal to the Supreme Court could result in a reversal. Since privacy rights are considered "interests," there is still controversy over whether they fall under the more clearly defined categories of rights such as freedom and property. Additionally, there has never been a direct case of compensation under Article 3, Section 1 of the National Compensation Act. Based on our firm's previous practical experience, as long as the target is a public entity, the procedure will always go through national compensation first and mediation to avoid being dismissed by the court for procedural deficiencies, with the Civil Code used as a supplement. Ms. Lin’s direct lawsuit under the Civil Code may result in the risk of the court rejecting her case. However, since privacy rights are not explicitly covered by the National Compensation Act, the first-instance judgment was reasonable.
 

(Related link: Can the Primary School's Surveillance Camera Recordings Lead to Civil or National Compensation? Different Opinions from First and Second Instance Courts - United Daily News)