Taipei City Council Demands Action on Hidden Camera Allegations in Medical Aesthetic Clinics

Allegations of hidden pinhole cameras in medical aesthetic clinics have become a focal point of discussion at the Taipei City Council. Councilor Miao Po-ya urged the city government to continue joint investigations, demand that clinics provide procedure consent forms for review, and conduct on-site inspections using anti-pinhole equipment. The Department of Health indicated it would require consent forms to comply with the Personal Information Protection Act, and the Police Department is considering potential cooperation.

The ongoing issue of alleged hidden cameras in several medical aesthetic clinics was addressed during a regular session of the Taipei City Council, with officials from the Department of Health, Police Department, and Fire Department in attendance. Several councilors expressed concern about the matter and inquired about the city government's current response.

Councilor Miao Po-ya noted that clinics implicated in the allegations claim they informed patients about recording during consultations and obtained signed consent forms. However, recent cases have revealed hidden cameras concealed within fire safety equipment.

Miao Po-ya stated that patients cannot realistically be expected to bring anti-hidden camera detection equipment during consultations, and the discovery of such devices in clinics causes significant harm to the doctor-patient relationship. She questioned the Fire Department's regular fire safety inspections, asking how they handle potential disguises for hidden cameras.

Fire Department Commissioner Mo Huai-tsu responded that during fire safety inspections of medical clinics, firefighters use heated detection rods to test devices like fixed-temperature fire alarm detectors. If a detector does not respond during inspection, it is deemed non-compliant and requires re-inspection, though inspections are primarily conducted on a sample basis.

Miao Po-ya inquired about the placement of detectors in clinics, asking if corner installations might conceal hidden cameras. Mo Huai-tsu replied that detectors in medical facilities are typically installed in the center of indoor ceilings, and placement in corners would raise strong suspicions of abnormalities.

Miao Po-ya also referenced the Taipei City Regulations on Preventing Pinhole Camera Installation in Public Places, pointing out a significant loophole where the onus is on the business operator to conduct anti-hidden camera detection. She questioned the city government's preventive measures.

Department of Health Commissioner Huang Chien-hua responded that besides requiring operators to self-report or conducting on-site checks, the department conducts pinhole camera inspections in medical facilities annually. However, Miao Po-ya's data revealed zero inspections, suggesting a need for the Department of Health to enhance its proactive inspection capabilities and collaborate with the police. She proposed that the Department of Health should require clinics to provide procedure consent forms for review. Huang Chien-hua acknowledged that clinics should explain the procedure process to patients and stated that the department would actively conduct inspections and inform clinics of their obligation to comply with the principles of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Democratic Progressive Party Councilor Lin Liang-chun also mentioned the zero inspection count under the Taipei City Regulations on Preventing Pinhole Camera Installation in Public Places, citing low inspection coverage rates across relevant city departments. She urged on-site inspections with equipment verification and requested police assistance for various departments. Police Commissioner Lin Yen-tien stated that this would be considered.