互操作性作為連接性：通過領土想像接壤全球資料治理

Abstract

本研究探討臺灣個人資料保護制度的建構歷程，以及在實務操作中所衍生的制度摩擦。儘管臺灣是亞洲最早制定個資保護法的國家之一，其《個人資料保護法》卻因制度老舊而日益受到質疑，引發對未來監管方向的辯論：一方面，有人主張鬆綁管制有助於科技創新與經濟成長；另一方面，也有觀點指出，若未能跟上國際資料治理趨勢，將導致交易成本上升並削弱競爭力。這場辯論實則反映出國家主權與資料驅動經濟發展間日益加深的張力。

本研究以此爭論為起點，批判性地回應資料保護法規與企業法遵實踐背後的政治經濟背景。結合科技與社會研究（STS）、政治法律地理學與政治經濟學等理論視角，本文主張：（一）政府在以貿易為導向的自由化改革與建立資料保護監管體系間的衝突，使個資保護制度推進緩慢且效果有限；（二）在對齊國際資料保護規範與避免過度監管以限制國家干預的雙重考量下，政府選擇尋找替代治理手段以管理資料流動；（三）在領土性想像的運作下，主管機關與企業之間的實作互動，也共同形塑了跨部門與跨司法轄區的資料流動樣貌。

在這過程中，本文進一步辨識出兩種領域化機制：（一）在微觀層次上，將個人資料自個人隱私領域中去領域化；（二）在宏觀層次上，透過多層次且一致性的資料治理體系重新領域化。此外，本文提出「互操作主權」（interoperable sovereignty）概念，意指國家藉由提升資料治理體系的互通性，促進國內數位經濟的連結性。研究結果指出，我們應超越對數位無疆界世界的未竟承諾，轉而關注數位空間中各種權力競逐的多元形式，從而更精確地描繪地方發展軌跡與全球數位治理之間的衝突、摩擦與整合。

This research traces Taiwan’s institutionalization process of data protection and derivative frictions in its on-site practices. Despite being an early adopter of data protection laws, Taiwan’s personal data protection act (PDPA) is now seen as outdated, sparking debate over its future regulatory progress: some argue deregulation will benefit technological innovation and economic growth, while others warn that failing to keep up with international regulations will cause additional transactional cost and undermine competitiveness, reflecting deeper tensions between state sovereignty and data-driven economic development. This research engages in this debate through critically conjuring wider political-economic background of data protection regulations and firm-level compliance practices. Drawing from the theories in science and technology studies (STS), political and legal geography, and political economy, I argue that (1) the conflicting government reform between trade-oriented liberalization and establishing the regulatory regime for data protection has resulted in slow progress and limited effectiveness in personal data protection; (2) the duality between aligning with international norms of data protection and restraining state intervention to avoid over-regulation urges the government to seek alternative measures in governing data flow; and, (3) with territorial imaginary at play, the performative interaction between the authority and enterprises articulate the flow of data across departments and jurisdictions. In this process, I identify two territorialization mechanisms: (1) de-territorializing personal data from personal privacy domains in the micro-level, and (2) re-territorializing it within the multi-layered and coherent data governance regime on the macro-level. Furthermore, I propose the concept of “interoperable sovereignty,” through which state enhances the interoperability of its data governance framework to promote the connectivity of the domestic digital economy. These results suggest us moving beyond the never-fulfilled promise of a borderless digital world but instead drawing attention to the multiple forms of power contestation in the digitals. This way, we may more precisely illustrate the clashes, friction, and integration between local trajectories and global digital governance.