Could Taking a Street Selfie Violate the National Security Act?

A citizen filming a simple street scene with their phone, only to be reported to the police and later summoned by the Investigation Bureau—this may sound like a plot from an authoritarian regime, but it happened in Taiwan.

On May 15, 2025, a woman was filming the streets in Songshan District, Taipei City. According to news reports, there were no military or sensitive facilities around—only schools, parks, and clinics. She was merely recording her surroundings out of personal interest. However, she was suddenly stopped by a stranger who demanded, “What are you filming? Are you Taiwanese?” The woman called the police and accused her of violating the National Security Act and the Child and Youth Welfare and Rights Protection Act.

When the police arrived, the woman clearly explained she was filming general street views and had no intent to capture any sensitive facilities. However, to her surprise, a few weeks later she received a formal notice from the Investigation Bureau requiring her to appear as a “witness” to clarify whether her actions had violated national security regulations. This summons drew public attention and widespread concern.

The incident quickly spread across social media and news platforms, sparking a wave of public debate. Many began to worry: Could simply taking selfies, livestreaming, or recording everyday moments on the street now be seen as “leaking secrets” or “spying,” leading to criminal investigations? Some questioned whether the Investigation Bureau should apply more stringent standards before accepting such cases, cautioning against using a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” approach that might stifle public freedom and spread fear.
Similar cases have emerged. A person was accused of being a Chinese spy for taking a selfie in a park. Another was publicly berated on the street for posting a lifestyle video on Instagram. This wave of “witch-hunt-style reporting” is creating a climate of suspicion in what was once a highly free society.

From a simple act of street photography to being summoned by a state agency—this trajectory raises an alarming question: Are we heading toward an unhealthy social atmosphere? The National Security Act is meant to safeguard the core interests of the state, but if misapplied or abused for baseless accusations, it can infringe on citizens' basic freedoms and public trust.

What Does the National Security Act Actually Protect?

When people are accused of violating the National Security Act just for taking photos or videos in public, we must return to the law itself and ask: What does the National Security Act really regulate? Understanding the law is crucial to drawing the proper boundaries and avoiding over-interpretation.

1. Article 2: “Secrets” and Prohibition of Espionage and Leaks

Article 2 of the National Security Act clearly states that no person may leak, deliver, or spy on classified information for foreign countries, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, or other hostile foreign forces. Such “secrets” include documents, images, videos, messages, objects, or electromagnetic records that are confidential in nature and known only through official duties—such as military deployments, diplomatic intelligence, or facility layouts.

The provision specifically targets individuals who are government personnel or closely associated with them and have access to classified information. It clearly does not apply to ordinary citizens filming public spaces, unless they are deliberately recording military or national security facilities or knowingly capturing state secrets.

2. Article 3: Core Technology, Trade Secrets, and Hostile Forces

Article 3 protects trade secrets related to national core technologies. It prohibits the acquisition and leakage of such technologies through theft, fraud, or coercion on behalf of foreign hostile forces. These technologies, if leaked, could severely damage national security, industrial competitiveness, or economic development.

The key elements are:
The person must act on behalf of or in connection with a hostile foreign force.
The information must be part of a publicly recognized core technology.
There must be a clear act of unauthorized access, use, or disclosure.

Everyday activities like street photography or social media check-ins have no relation to such classified or technological information and therefore fall far outside the scope of Article 3. In summary, the National Security Act is designed to protect highly confidential and nationally critical information and technologies. Ordinary citizens taking videos or photos in public, without targeting defense or government institutions, and without any links to hostile foreign forces, are unlikely to fall under the act’s jurisdiction.

In other words, the National Security Act is not a tool to restrict the public’s right to take photos, nor is it a catch-all provision for regulating daily life. Using national security crimes to prosecute ordinary behavior violates the principle of proportionality and undermines public trust in the law. Laws should prevent real harm—not suppress innocent freedoms.

Legal Distinctions Between Witnesses and Criminal Suspects

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a witness is someone who has seen or heard something relevant to a crime and is asked to help clarify the facts. A criminal suspect, on the other hand, is someone believed to be possibly involved in a crime and may face formal investigation or charges.

The crucial difference: a suspect has full rights of defense, including the right to remain silent, the right to legal counsel, and the right against self-incrimination. A witness, however, does not have these protections and may not be allowed a lawyer’s presence during questioning.

In this case, the citizen was summoned as a witness rather than a suspect, possibly as a strategy by investigators to avoid triggering the procedural safeguards that apply to suspects, thereby allowing more investigative freedom. This tactic has drawn criticism from lawyers and human rights advocates. While investigative agencies do have the authority to conduct initial fact-checking based on a report, any summons must be based on reasonable suspicion—meaning concrete evidence that the person may know or be involved in criminal activity.

But in this situation, the filming took place in a public area with no military or government facilities in sight, and the citizen had clearly explained the purpose from the outset. There was no record of foreign contact. If mere subjective suspicion from a passerby (“She looks like a spy” or “She’s filming weird things”) is enough to trigger such official action, it lacks a proper legal foundation.

ore concerningly, such tactics can a chilling effect. People might stop recording or documenting daily life in public for fear of being dragged into a criminal probe. Over time, this could shrink personal freedoms and turn a culture of reporting into a mechanism of social surveillance.

A witness summons is meant to help investigators clarify a case. But if misused or handled improperly, it becomes a threat to civil rights and may amount to an abuse of investigative power. That’s why ongoing public oversight is essential to ensure the system functions fairly and protects everyone’s basic rights.

Law Should Not Be a Catalyst for Fear—Protecting Freedom Begins with Understanding the Law

The National Security Act is meant to address real threats to national security—not to criminalize ordinary activities. Street photography and daily livestreams should not be politicized or punished based on unfounded accusations. If even casual photo-taking can result in legal summonses or investigations, Taiwan’s democratic freedoms could be at risk.

That said, it’s worth remembering: even casual photography or videography that captures minors should be handled with care. Always respect privacy by adding mosaics or masks when needed to avoid violating child protection laws.

If you—or someone you know—is summoned, interviewed, or detained by a prosecutor’s office, police department, or the Investigation Bureau, remember: you have the right to a lawyer. Investigators must wait for your lawyer to arrive before beginning any questioning.

Law should never be a source of fear. It should be a tool to protect each citizen. If you have questions about your rights or feel uneasy about a summons, consult a lawyer. We’re here to help you understand your situation and stand by your side—to defend your freedom and your rights.