News 2022：Richardson Reports（理查森報告）

Author：Michael Richardson（美國獨立撰稿人）
※ Excerpt aus：https://richardsonreports.wordpress.com/author/richardsonreports/



—（January 18, 2022）In a January 11, 2022 email, Data Protection Officer Suzie Mereweather stated, "The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners."……In 2011, in response to her exploratory bid for office, the University of London began a search for the long-forgotten thesis, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions. Internal Senate House Library emails reveal an extensive search was made for the thesis with no success, leading to the conclusion that it must have been lost from the library.……In 2015, in response to Tsai's intention to seek office, the Senate House Library conducted a second, deep search for the dissertation. This time internal library emails disclose the thesis never was received. The thesis had not been lost, the University never had it to lose. However, that information was kept secret and Tsai went on to become the ROC president.
大意：2022年，倫敦大學終於承認考官並未繳回審閱本，所以沒有發表蔡英文的論文。之前在2011、2015都進行過內部調查，先是以為圖書館不小心遺失，而後確認沒有收到論文，但是這項訊息被保密起來。

—（January 21, 2022）However, when one asks questions about the viva examination, neither school has the requested information and both claim the other school holds the answers.……Both schools have buttressed their right-to-privacy denials with a second line of defense, a purported lack of records. ……In a November 8, 2019 response to a FOI request, Rachael Maguire, Information and Records Manager (the London School of Economics), said: "I can confirm that the Department of Law holds no records relating to President Tsai's PhD. At that point in time, the School did not award degrees as it had no degree awarding powers. As such, all records relating to the degree are held by the University of London."……In a January 11, 2022 response to an information request, Suzie Mereweather, Head of Data Protection and Information Compliance (the University of London) said: "The primary record for PhD awards is held by the Member Institution, not the University of London."…… Reliance by the LSE on the tardy thesis for confidence in the verification of the thesis, despite an absence of records, has been joined by the UL, which now cites the LSE statement as proof that President Tsai qualified for the UL degree.
大意：當有人詢問蔡英文的論文口試問題時，LSE和倫敦大學都聲稱另一所學校掌握著相關記錄。目前兩校仍引用2019年10月的 LSE 聲明作為蔡英文獲得博士學位的證詞。

—（February 4, 2022）University of London refuses Freedom of Information request about Tsai Ing-wen thesis calling Professor Hwan Lin vexatious……Dear University of London,
In 1984, there was Central Registry within Academic Division of the Senate Department of the University of London, and Mrs. P. C. Kennedy served as Supervisor of the Central Registry according to the University of London Calendar of 1983-84. Please kindly answer the following questions: 1. Did Mrs. P. C. Kennedy continue to serve as Supervisor of the Central Registry in 1987 at the University of London? Does she still work at the University of London today? 2. Was there a person, called "Mrs. A. M. Amos", who worked together with Mrs. P. C. Kennedy within the Central Registry in 1984? If not, did Mrs. A. M. Amos work elsewhere then at the University of London? The above questions are my FOIA request to the University of London. Thank you very much for your valuable time in advance. Yours faithfully, Hwan Lin……In refusing to answer Lin's questions, the school explained its rationale for non-compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
"The University considers that your request has the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. ……Your request has met one or more of the following criteria of a vexatious request: being a burden on the authority; using abusive or aggressive language; bearing a personal grudge; being of unreasonable persistence; giving unfounded accusations; or a deliberate attempt to cause annoyance."
大意：林環牆向倫敦大學詢問1984年7月5日發函認證蔡英文學歷的A. M. Amos（未簽名）和P. C. Kennedy（代簽名）是否曾任職於註冊中心，但是校方卻視為無理取鬧。

—（February 12, 2022）A recent University news release defending a controversial PhD award to Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen……The University granted Tsai a degree in 1984 but does not have a thesis from Tsai in its library collection. When confronted with the problem of a missing thesis, the school, through spokesman Kit Good, alleged they had the thesis but it was lost by librarians. After Information Review Tribunal Judge Hazel Oliver dismissed the claim that librarians lost the thesis the school now says they do not know if they had her thesis or not. That story however contradicts email correspondence from the school’s Senate House Library that the thesis was never received. The University of London says not to worry because the degree was correctly awarded despite the absence of a thesis and its refusal to name the examiners who purportedly approved the "lost" thesis.
大意：倫敦大學於近期聲明：儘管不知道是否保有蔡英文的博士論文，不過學位是正確授予的。

—（March 13, 2022）A series of emails from librarians and other school officials at the University of London, recently disclosed by a Freedom of Information request, revealed that the University first knew the 1983 PhD thesis of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen was missing in 2011. ……University of London officials never did find the thesis in its Senate House Library, however they located a computer "card output" for the thesis leading them to believe the library once had the thesis but somehow it went missing. ……Four years later in 2015……as before, the thesis was never found. This time a deeper search was made and instead of relying on a "card output" to verify that the thesis made it to the shelves, a librarian went into storage and discovered a notation the "card output" did not have. "However, we do have an old card catalogue covering theses from the 1980s and there is a card for this one which indicates we were due to receive the thesis, but it never arrived. "
大意：倫敦大學在2011年找不到蔡英文的博士論文，但表示有相關資訊；2015年再度查找，確認論文從未送達圖書館。

—（May 12, 2022）Now, the UL is forced to admit it is missing critical pages from its 1983 PhD regulations. Emily Brick, the UL's Information Goverance Officer, offers the current regulations but says missing pages of the 1983 regulations cannot be found. "I am writing to release the additional information requested – the missing pages in the 1983-1984 Regulations for Internal Students and the General Regulations 1983-1984." "I have asked colleagues and we could not find any material on the nomination of examiners for the time and composition of examination boards, although we do have these guidelines now which are published on our website."……However, a larger question presents itelf. How could the UL know that President Tsai was correctly awarded a PhD degree if they cannot verify the viva examination panel was properly constituted?
大意：倫敦大學表示找不到當年任命博士口試委員的相關規定，而提供的資料中有明顯漏頁。倘若校方無法驗證考官是否符合資格，如何確認博士學位是否正確授予？

—（June 21, 2022）In a stunning reversal, Information Review Tribunal Judge Alison McKenna overturned the Information Commissioner and found that the London School of Economics violated the Freedom of Information Act. ……In a Freedom of Information request, the LSE was asked for the names of President Tsai's examiners, however, the school claimed that it lacked the identities of the thesis examiners. At the same time, Kevin Haynes, the "Head of Legal Team" at LSE, volunteered to the ROC Ministry of Justice the names of purported examiners. ……Haynes' subordinate, Rachael Maguire, has since suggested that Haynes gave incorrect information to Tsai's prosecutors because of a "hurried view" of Tsai's student record. ……Its submission to the Tribunal dated 14 March 2022 it stated that "…the information we hold on file is only there accidentally…we cannot be certain that this information is accurate". ……“LSE confirmed to the Tribunal that it holds President Tsai’s student file, comprising 278 pages. It stated that there is a letter on this file in which a person appears to self-identify as one of the Viva examiners, but that it has no official notification from University of London whether this information was correct, and it holds no information on the identity of the co-examiner.”
※…the information that she had two internal examiners – [XX] and [YY] – and one external examiner – [ZZ].-[XX], who refers to ‘my co-examiner and myself’ in a memo …dated 16/1/1983.- [YY] is mentioned in the file but couldn’t find him specifically named as an examiner.-[ZZ], named as external examiner in a letter from Pres Tsai to …
大意：英國行政法庭推翻前議，認定LSE在論文門案中違反《信息自由法》：一方面否認持有相關資料，另一方面卻向台灣提供沒有確實查證的口試委員信息。※ 當時LSE法律團隊負責人匆忙查看了一些意外找到的資料，如今發現所謂校內口試委員XX是在1983年1月16日（編按：當時蔡英文的論文題目尚未被獲准）寫下「我與一位共同考官」等語，而另一位校內口試委員YY則是缺乏相關線索（編按：雖然蔡英文曾在1990年稱他是指導教授之一），至於校外口試委員ZZ這個名字（編按：蔡英文於2021年根據個人印象而首次陳述）則是出自蔡總統的一封信。

—（July 12, 2022）A complaint has been filed against the University of London with Information Commissioner John Edwards over missing examination regulations. The complaint is in response the UL claim that 1983 thesis examination regulations are missing with no copies available. ……The Freedom of Information request for the examination regulations was made May 10, 2021. The UL stonewalled the request until May 10, 2022, a full year later, only to announce the regulations were missing. The year-long wait for nothing prompted the complaint to the Information Commissioner. “Complainant believes the response by the UL, of missing thesis examination regulations, to his FOIA request is improbable and part of a pattern of continuing obfuscation directed against Complainant and others seeking information that might shed light on the veracity of allegations of academic fraud. ……The regulations the UL did provide to Complainant appear to be copied from a bound volume. The examination regulations pages sought by the FOIA request are missing from the pages disclosed.……”
大意：倫敦大學花了一年的時間才宣稱找不到1983年的考試相關規定，被懷疑是故意隱匿，目前ICO已接受投訴。

—（July 20, 2022）The London School of Economics and Political Science has been slapped with a Notice of Non-Compliance for its failure to comply with a June 21, 2022 court order issued by Information Review Tribunal Judge Alison McKenna. The LSE was given twenty-eight days by the Tribunal to “issue a fresh response to the Appellant's original information request which confirms that information within the scope of his request is held and either disclose it or claim any exemptions to disclosure on which it relies.”
大意：英國行政法庭在6月21日要求LSE在28天內重新針對口委信息作出回應，然而校方並未遵守，因此法庭發出違規通知。

—（July 21, 2022）Dennis Peng, a Taiwanese newsman living in self-exile in California, has won a new Canadian human rights award of $10,000 CD called the Justice Star Award. ……The new award, established byEstrella Shen, a Taiwanese-Canadian, received a number of nominations for Peng from former Stanford University faculty members and overseas organizations. “The committee scrutinized Professor Peng's fearless performance in defending Taiwan's freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and judicial justice, and in monitoring and challanging the totalitarian government.”
大意：彭文正勇敢捍衛言論、新聞自由和司法公正，受到眾多海外人士的提名，榮獲加拿大「正義之星」獎。

—（July 31, 2022）Jack Healey, founder of the Human Rights Action Center, following his retirement as director of Amnesty International, wants Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen to drop her criminal defamation charges against Taiwanese newsman Dennis Peng. ……Jack Healey is now following the story and posted a summary on his Facebook page.“Professor Peng was the most popular political TV show host from 2009 to 2019 in Taiwan and in 2012 he read my blog regarding Chen Shui-bian's human rights on national TV, which brought a national awareness to our rescue mission….His criticisms of the present Tsai government should not land him in trouble and some political very hot water.”
大意：前國際特赦組織美國分會秘書長傑克•希利呼籲蔡英文撤銷對彭文正的刑事誹謗告訴。

—（August 1, 2022）However, the LSE fresh response still does not name the thesis examiners.……“….Examiner names are kept confidential in order to ensure that no pressure to increase or decrease marks occurs. There is therefore an expectation from examiners that their names will not be released, either to students or to other third parties. It would therefore breach the first data protection principle to release as it would not be fair.”“In deciding on the fairness of release, we considered whether there was a public interest reason for releasing the names, but on balance do not think there is. The examination was nearly forty years ago. Neither LSE or University of London believe there is any reason given by any third party that the examination did not come to a proper conclusion that Ing-wen Tsai had passed the viva. Considering the interest in the case, we believe that there would be immense pressure put on the individuals concerned if we released their names that they could not have expected almost forty years ago when they agreed to be the viva examiners and which we cannot lay on them or those associated with them now.”
大意：LSE拒絕透露蔡英文的口委信息，理由是這有違資料保護原則，而且40年前的事已不具公共利益，並認為公布姓名會給當年的口委帶來巨大壓力。

—（August 24, 2022）……Upper Tribunal Judge Mark West next week will consider arguments pitting the Data Protection Act against the Freedom of Information Act.……The DPA (Data Protection Act) protection of personal data has been considered by the UL and the ICO as an absolute exclusion from the transparency mandate of the FOI (Freedom of Information). ……Thus far the Information Commissioner has sided with the UL against the general public interest. The UL approach to examiner identities, adopted by the ICO, is not universal in the United Kingdom academic world. The University of Edinburgh Handbook for External Examining of Research Degrees takes a different approach to examiners. Regulation 16.5 provides: “External Examiner reports and any correspondence engaged in by the External Examiner in connection with their External Examiner duties are disclosable in line with the University’s freedom of information obligations.”……Judge West will have little precedent to guide him in sorting out which law overrides the other.……However, if the Upper Tribunal finds that the larger matter of the necessity of verification of qualification is at issue, Tsai’s thesis case could have a widespread effect on the examination process for advanced degrees in all of the United Kingdom.
大意：英國高等行政法院將評估「資料保護」與「信息自由」孰輕孰重。ICO等機構讓個資的重要性凌駕於公益，而愛丁堡大學則規定：外部審查員的報告和相關通信都要服膺於大學的信息自由義務。

—（September 5, 2022）Louise Nadal, Secretary of the LSE Board, announced the school's uncertainty after conducting a second internal review of Tsai's student file. Previously, LSE “Head of Legal Team” Kevin Haynes identified Michael Elliott, Tsai's LSE advisor, and Leonard Leigh, a LSE professor, as Tsai's thesis examiners.……“You stated that the School is required to confirm or deny whether the information is held. ……In the absence of certainty that information is accurate, the School cannot be sure whether it is held.” The school's uncertainty has not stopped them from declaring President Tsai's degree valid, making a special public announcement confirming the validity of the PhD award.……Nadal said not only was the school uncertain of who President Tsai's examiners were but that whoever they were, they needed to be protected from a hostile campaign.“……The volume of enquiries and correspondence the School has received on this matter in recent years, often of a hostile nature, does not persuade me that any disclosure would prevent those named from being subject to similar attention as part of a campaign.”……“I note that you are not persuaded by the School's explanation that the names of examiners are kept confidential to prevent pressure from being applied to alter marks. While this is a principle which you consider inapplicable to this matter, it remains the case that examiners have a reasonable expectation that their identity will not being [sic] disclosed to students or others. ……” ……“You have also compared the School’s response adversely to that of the University of Oxford, suggesting it does not reflect a modern approach. I do not think the two cases bear any particularly close similarity – at the University of Oxford, the student claimed an award which does not reflect that given and the University provided a formal clarification. In the case of Tsai Ing-wen, the University of London has not issued any correction or statement questioning the nature of the award made.”
大意：LSE秘書長向麥可•理查森表示，校方無法確定是否保有蔡英文的口委身分信息，但無論如何都要保護個資，畢竟考官會希望其身份不被學生們或其他人士知曉；此外，她認為不應該將蔡英文一案與牛津大學的情形（編按：小馬可仕一案）加以比較。

—（September 9, 2022）The (What Do They Know) website , designed to help the public with Freedom of Information requests, has done a backwards somersault and purged citizen activists from its data base. The purge, announced in March ……The purge was announced by Senior Developer Gareth Rees in behalf of the management team which is operated by a group called MySociety.……Spokesman Rees said that instead of representing a strong public interest in the validity of President Tsai’s PhD degree, the many requests represent something more sinister emanating from the People’s Republic of China. ……“During the course of this situation, we have banned 108 user accounts, most of which have been created to circumnavigate previous bans and to post inappropriate material to our site. We removed more than 300 requests from the site and 1,640 comments from pages.……To put this in context, we only banned 126 newly created user accounts in the whole of 2021, mainly for spamming.”……(Hwan) Lin, a PhD himself, wants to know how the purge of academic inquiries to universities helps citizens obtain accountability. “I made an FOIA request to LSE in January 2022 and another two FOIA requests to the University of London in February 2022. They are all about the controversies of Ing-wen Tsai’s doctoral thesis and degree. The January request has long been overdue, while the two February requests were labelled as vexatious for no legitimate reasons. Even more absurd was the ensuing suspension of my What Do They Know account, ridding me of rights to information from public authorities.”
大意：WhatDoTheyKnow網站的管理團隊MySociety接受檢舉，認定論文門案的大量討論與中共的陰謀有關，於2022年3月間進行了前所未有的大規模清除行動：禁止108個帳戶，並且刪除300多個信息自由的請求和1,640條相關評論，其中的受害者包括林環牆。

—（September 12, 2022）Deluged with Freedom of Information request denials by the London School of Economics and Political Science and the University of London, the Information Commissioner's Office of the United Kingdom has turned on members of the public making the requests, refusing them as vexatious. The requests are disparaged in a public announcement by the ICO.……“Our understanding of the matters around Tsai Ing-wen's PHD awarded by the LSE [sic] in 1984, in as far as we have been required to consider them in connection with several complaints we have received…are summarised in a series of decision notices available on our website. ”（FS50908339, IC-40405-S7L3, IC-83994-C7Z4, IC109451-S1M2）……(Presently, the Tribunal decision is now under reconsideration by the Upper Tribunal.)……“The intent of these requests is clearly to try to add weight to theories around the falsification of President Tsai's PHD, which have already been considered at length by the Commissioner and the Tribunal and found to be entirely lacking in substance, as well as to express dissatisfaction with the Commissioner's decisions in these matters and cause deliberate disruption to the ICO's services.”
大意：由於LSE和倫敦大學拒絕大量信息自由的請求，ICO已將論文門的質疑視為無理取鬧。雖然ICO列舉已處理的投訴，貌似結案，但是英國行政法庭正在重新審理中。

—（September 15, 2022）Rees may soon be calling his MySociety censorship team together to work on some apologies. The banned WDTK users (Hwan Lin, Wen-Ting Chiu, Herb Raison Lin, Taitzer Wang, and Yu Chao) have begun stepping forward to deny their information requests were vexatious or that they were acting as disinformation agents for China. To a person, they all insist the pursuit of truth is their only motivation. They are unhappy at the denial of due process and being purged without cause or notice by a group supposedly dedicated to advancing Freedom of Information access.……“As a Taiwanese and Polish citizen, to be insinuated that I am involved in activities to gain social credits in China is a grave insult to me. I am interested in the complete transparency of President Tsai's degree, because I think integrity is an essential quality of a state leader. There is nothing for me to gain personally, either the degree is genuine or not. All I seek is truth.”……“I am appalled by the fact that this self-appointed, faceless arbitrator of 'truth' in the UK has the nerve to come out in the open to defend its despicable act of blatant censorship and disinformation, and to justify it by pinning it on the PRC, as if the source of these questions had any bearing on their validity. Not to mention people pursuing the ThesisGate are predominantly those on the PRC blacklist……”
大意：被封鎖的WhatDoTheyKnow用戶否認中共同路人的指控，認為這是對追求真相者的嚴重污辱，而且許多探究蔡英文論文門的台灣人被列入中共的黑名單。

—（September 16, 2022）Rees, who was trying to justify the purge of Taiwanese researchers from the WDTK website, explained the LSE told him the school was targeted by Chinese disinformation agents for personal gain. Rees and his management team quickly sprung into action and shut down pending FOI requests about the thesis denouncing the purported misuse of the website by Chinese operatives without offering any supporting evidence. The purged WDTK users thus far identified have not been Chinese at all and instead are Taiwanese researchers concerned about possible academic fraud by President Tsai. So far none of the questions posed by the researchers appear to be vexatious and MySociety's purge has all the appearances of political interference with FOI requests rather than a response to misuse as Rees claimed. ……MySociety claims, “Our work is politically non-partisan, evidence-based, accountable and open to scrutiny. We critique our own work and that of our sector honestly; we publish our references, won't hide uncomfortable truths, and where we fall short we seek to rectify our mistakes promptly.”
大意：LSE告訴MySociety的人員，學校已成為中共假信息傳播者謀私利的目標，於是後者在缺乏證據支持下就進行了掃蕩。MySociety號稱是無黨無派，以證據為準，不會隱藏令人不安的事實，並且願意及時糾正自身的錯誤。

—（September 20, 2022）It is unknown if the MySociety censorship team called upon its TicTech advisor Wu Min Hsuan, a Taiwanese computer guru with political connections, to vet the purged researchers. Wu's LinkedIn bio lists him as a former paid political consultant in Taiwan. Wu's mission is explained on the Doublethink Lab website he founded. “Doublethink Lab is researching modern threats to democracy and devising strategies to counter them. He is focused on mapping China's online information operation mechanisms.” ……Rees and Wu have both been featured MySociety speakers at RightsCon, a periodic international cyber convention. Wu's signature work is something called the China Index, where the PRC propaganda influence is cataloged and quantified.
大意：關注中共假信息的台灣民主實驗室（Doublethink Lab）創辦人兼執行長吳銘軒是MySociety的顧問，目前還不清楚MySociety是否請他針對論文門的質疑者進行審查。

—（September 23, 2022）The long-running controversy over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's 1983 PhD thesis at the London School of Economics and Political Science was highlighted in a Harvard University publication called Combatting and Defeating Chinese Propaganda and Disinformation prepared for the United States Department of State. The author of the Tsai Ing-wen case study is Aaron Huang, a former spokesman for the American Institute in Taiwan. Huang is also a veteran of the Intelligence Bureau in the State Department and worked in the United Kingdom on a House of Commons committee. ……Huang, a firm advocate of President Tsai's story, denounced “the falsehood that Tsai's London School of Economics doctoral degree was fake.” “China's role was in propagating and amplifying this false story.” ……One of Huang's sources on the allegation of Chinese disinformation efforts was Puma Shen, who is described as “Taiwan's top disinformation expert.” The Journal of Information Warfare cited Shen as the chairperson of an outfit called Doublethink Lab, founded by computer guru Wu Min Hsuan.……If the State Department wants to get to the bottom of the matter it should consider asking Huang to do more homework and update his Harvard University paper. Within the past month, the LSE has admitted not knowing who examined President Tsai’s thesis and the University of London, which awarded Tsai a degree for her scholarship, has admitted losing the regulations which governed her viva examination.
大意：任職美國在台協會的黃博倫（Aaron Huang）曾在哈佛刊物上探討台灣總統大選，認為論文門是中共假信息；許多強調中國認知作戰的文章列於參考文獻之上，包括台灣民主實驗室理事長沈伯洋的深度評論。

—（September 26, 2022）At the center of the cyber maelstrom, Facebook set up an Election Administration Center which became known as the “war room” to those in the know. A United States Department of State study conducted at Harvard University entitled Combatting and Defeating Chinese Propaganda and Disinformation provides some of the details.……“Facebook's policy, legal, and security representatives; content moderators; and local experts on politics, elections, and law…could meet face to face and expedite the decision-making process on what accounts to delete and what fake news to downrank/remove.……Facebook found the war room effective, and Dr. Puma Shen, Taiwan's top Chinese sharp power professor, stated that the war room was one of the key reasons why Chinese propaganda and disinformation did not have much effect on Taiwan's elections this time.”……An academic paper funded by the ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs entitled Media Warfare Taiwan's Battle for the Cognitive Domain offers more details of the effort to respond to the Chinese misinformation. The paper was authored by Professor Kerry K. Gershaneck. “Taiwan's leaders learned from the PRC aggressive Media Warfare in the 2018 election, and effectively combatted it in 2020 through an innovative, whole-of-society approach.……In the alliance, the government worked with major social media companies such as Facebook and LINE, and these companies became faster at finding and removing fake accounts and disinformation.……Facebook shut down a total of 118 Taiwan-based fan pages (one with as many as 155,443 members) along with 99 public groups and 51 accounts used to administer these pages various pages and accounts. Many of these pages and accounts supported the then-KMT presidential candidate, Han Kuo-yu.”……The Stanford Cyber Policy Center issued a report entitled Telling China's Story: The Chinese Communist Party's Campaign to Shape Global Narratives.……“Aside from suspicious YouTube channels and minimal activity on Twitter, China did not appear to leverage fake accounts on popular Western social media platforms to spread disinformation during the Taiwan 2020 presidential election. Although a cluster of accounts and Pages was removed from Facebook during the campaign, they were attributed to coordinated domestic actors—a reminder that not all inauthentic political activity comes from outside.”
大意：黃博倫和接受外交部資助研究的另一位外國教授皆表示，與政府結盟的台灣臉書作戰室在打擊中共的媒體戰方面很有成效，於2020大選期間關閉了118個粉絲專頁、99個社團、以及51個多重帳號，多為韓國瑜的支持者。史丹佛的研究則指出，除了極少數的可疑活動，中共當時似乎並未在台灣的社交媒體上散佈假信息。

—（October 5, 2022）Doublethink Lab is a think tank. The core activity seems to be a cadre of computer savy activists looking at internet data at the micro level and drawing conclusions on whether or not something is disinformation. Doublethink is well funded and well connected. Co-founded by Wu Min-hsuan and Puma Shen in 2019, the cyber-oriented think tank quickly moved into the political arena with its analytical talents and published a report on the 2020 election. Doublethink Lab describes itself as a “Taiwan based organization that operates at the intersection of the Internet, public discourse, civil society, and democratic governance.”……“We have developed a cross-platform database to keep track of 1,485 shared domains that can be grouped into 600 websites and filtered into 113 shared political content farms, which we used to reference 191 suspected Facebook Pages.……Facebook Taiwan has changed its algorithm to lower the ranking of disinformation sites in their search results in order to reduce the number of people who see these posts. Last October, Facebook filtered out all news feeds containing the domain names of the content farm Mission and other well-known content farms, including Kknews and Hssszn.”Despite all of Doublethink's work with Facebook data there is not a peep in the report about the election “war room” where Facebook representatives met with cyber warfare experts and ROC anti-infiltration agents while a purge of user accounts was planned. Content farms that outsource distribution for payments did get noted in the report.……“Listed below are four political rumors circulated in the 2020 Taiwan general election.……2. Tsai Ing-wen's PhD thesis dissertation is fake and unqualified.……”……Between Anti-Infiltration Act cyber teams in the ROC departments of government, Facebook censors ready to purge, and organizations like Doublethink Lab on the counter-offensive, Tsai Ing-wen's PhD thesis controversy quickly quieted as a campaign issue.……However, the MySociety purge has all the earmarks of the 2020 election war room cyber warfare with its allegations of personal financial motives by Chinese disinformation agents.
大意：協助臉書修改演算法的台灣民主實驗室曾指出論文門是與中共有關的政治謠言之一，於是在政府與民間團隊的努力下，投票日的出口民調顯示只有20%的人相信這些質疑。2020年Facebook和2022年MySociety進行的掃蕩都是指控中共同路人在趁機牟利。

—（October 12, 2022）A newly filed appeal to the Information Review Tribunal in the United Kingdom by Professor Hwan Lin over a Freedom of Information Act refusal by the London School of Economics and Political Science promises to provide a full-blown court hearing on the validity of the PhD degree of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen.……Lin made a FOIA request to the LSE for verification information about the school's October 2019 public announcement regarding Tsai's degree award which earned him a refusal for making a vexatious request. Lin was personally refused by Kevin Haynes, the “Head of Legal Team” at the LSE. Non-attorney Haynes showed his inexperience with FOIA litigation by tagging Lin as vexatious. When Lin complained to the Information Commissioner's Office the derogatory label was enhanced by Senior Case Officer Roger Cawthorne who branded Lin a conspiracy theorist.……Lin's appeal to the Tribunal is the fourth case about the thesis to reach the United Kingdom courts. Two cases seeking information about the October 16, 1983 viva examination are now pending at the Upper Tribunal on reconsideration request. The third case involved the LSE and the reversal of Cawthorne's handiwork forced the LSE to admit it does not know who the thesis examiners were. ……“Respondent's Senior Case Officer, Roger Cawthorne, who issued the Decision Notice without any communication with Appellant during the eight months of ICO inactivity on the complaint, has a history, which required judicial correction, of improperly processing a FOIA request complaint concerning the LSE and President Tsai's PhD degree. Judge Alison McKenna corrected the Decision Notice, EA/2021/0373, after finding Mr. Cawthorne failed to adequately investigate the complaint to which he had been assigned.”
大意：林環牆向LSE詢問2019年LSE官網聲明出自何方，被Kevin Haynes以「無理取鬧」來拒絕；向ICO申訴時，又遭專員Roger Cawthorne稱為「陰謀論者」，林環牆已向行政法庭提告。Cawthorne曾處理過蔡英文口委的案子，但是由於未能充分調查，行政法庭已於2022年6月推翻前議。

—（October 19, 2022）Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs of the United Kingdom gave Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen a pass and refused a Freedom of Information Act appeal request seeking information on the validity of her University of London PhD award.……Jacobs concluded “concerns and worries about the proper form of the President's degree cannot be resolved within the FOIA scheme.……The tribunal decided that it was not necessary to disclose more than was already known. President Tsai's name is on the contemporaneous pass list for in 1984 and the title of her thesis was published in 1985. The University had confirmed that there was an oral examination and that it holds records of that examination. The tribunal decided that this was sufficient to satisfy the legitimate interests of [Appellant].……The request was for information.……it relates to the information rather than to the document or file or other format in which it is held.……The request was made to the University of London.……the duty did not apply to the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), which was the relevant college.……The University's duty, subject to any exemptions, was to provide the information it held.……The University could not disclose what it did not hold. An appeal is not an opportunity to explore why some information is not held or to try to find other ways to obtain the information. The tribunal had to decide what information the University held. That is a question of fact and, provided the tribunal made its finding rationally, it is difficult to identify an error of law in a matter of fact. ……FOIA is limited to disclosing information held. It may contradict other data, but FOIA does not provide a way to decide which is correct. [Appellant] argues that the existence of the contradictions make it more necessary to see the original data. ……The Information Commissioner and the First-tier Tribunal have no authority to deal with a challenge to the accuracy of the record.……The tribunal found that, although the theses may not have been provided to the libraries rather than lost or misfiled, that did not undermine the accuracy of the information about the degree awarded. ”
大意：英國高等行政法庭拒絕麥可•理查森的上訴請求，認為沒有必要公開更多信息，而且本案僅限於要求倫敦大學披露所持有的信息，因此與LSE無關，也無法要求文件格式；至於校方為何缺乏資訊、或是內容與其他資料相互矛盾，ICO和行政法庭也無權處理。

—（October 24, 2022）In a non-appealable ruling, West granted the University of London unfettered control over verification of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's controversial PhD degree, depriving the public of the identity of two unnamed examiners who purportedly approved Tsai's 1983 thesis.……The thesis also lacked an examination statement and bore no evidence it had been examined.……“The Tribunal found that the Appellant had a legitimate private interest and that there was a broader public interest in the legitimacy of President Tsai's PhD, but that the disclosure of the requested information was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of that identified legitimate interest.……Whether a hard copy of the thesis was once delivered and subsequently lost, or never received in the first place, does not affect the question of whether it was necessary to process the data sought. A FOIA request is not a vehicle for discovering everything about President Tsai's thesis.……Although the Appellant addressed me eloquently on that matter, he was unable to cite any authority in support of his submission. The furthest he could go was to assert that 'The importance of public verification of qualification for President Tsai's PhD degree requires full disclosure of the requested information and the DPA has been misapplied by the FTT as a shield against necessary disclosure' but no authority is cited for that proposition.……There is no identifiable error of law made out by the Appellant……I am wholly unpersuaded, notwithstanding the Appellant's eloquent submissions to the contrary, that the University in this case has been lying or involved in academic fraud.……The Tribunal made its findings of fact and gave adequate reasons for reaching the conclusion which it did.…… There is no realistic prospect of the Appellant establishing that the First-tier Tribunal's decision was erroneous in law or that there is some other good reason to grant permission to appeal.”
大意：即使無法證明蔡英文的論文已通過審查，英國高等行政法庭仍拒絕查核其口委姓名的上訴。法官完全不相信校方涉及學術欺詐，認為上訴者沒有指出一審判決的法律錯誤，而且未引用「權威」來支持其論述。

—（November 11, 2022）Recently appointed Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, Michelle Donelan's staff has refused to consider an amendment to the Data Protection Act to close an academic fraud loophole in the law. Donelan, who was appointed to her post in September, is overseeing the passage of a rewrite of the United Kingdom's Data Protection Act. However, Donelan apparently will not support a correction in the law to require public verification of University of London degrees.……Donelan's department quickly dismissed judicial commentary on the controversy. “The government considers that the existing definition of personal data works well, and so does not intend to create a new definition or change the existing understanding of what identifiers fall into the definition of personal data.”Donelan was Minister of State for Higher and Further Education from September 2021 to July 2022 and her experience should have prepared her for the problems with the DPA/FOIA conflict of law identified by the Upper Tribunal. Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs ruled on 18 October 2022, in UA-2022-000491-GIA: “[Appellant's] concerns and worries about the proper form of the President's degree cannot be resolved within the FOIA scheme.” Upper Tribunal Judge Mark West ruled on 20 October 2022, in UA-2021-000416-GIA: “A FOIA request is not a vehicle for discovering everything about President Tsai's thesis.”……The Upper Tribunal applied the DPA personal data protections to examiners on the essential question of verification of qualification of a degree award, thus voiding and negating a public and transparent verification. In President Tsai's case, with its tardy thesis, unknown examiners to the school she attended, and contradictory statements on receipt of the thesis by the UL, a reasonable person is entitled to ask who approved the thesis and when. Under the present stautory scheme such a question by the public will not be answered, raising the spectre of academic fraud.
大意：近期從高等暨進修教育轉司數位、文化、媒體和體育的英國大臣，不支持修改《數據保護法》（DPA）現有的個資定義。然而根據蔡英文的案例可知，若是無法驗證考官身分，將成為學術詐欺的隱憂。

—（November 20, 2022）The University of London, which awarded Tsai her degree, claims to know who the examiners were but won't identify the scholars citing DPA personal data protections. Now, the Cabinet Office has been requested to seek amendment of the Freedom of Information Act to close the fraud gateway by requiring examination disclosure in a sixteen word addition to the list of exemptions adding: “unless such information is used in the verification of qualification for advanced degrees at public universities.”……The amendment proposal submitted to the Cabinet Office sets out the rationale for the change in the law. “The problem of verification of qualification of a PhD degree is not one limited to President Tsai's case, it is one of a structural nature, capable of being repeated. The practice in the United Kingdom on identification of examiners is varied, Oxford University, for example, names examiners while the University of London does not identify examiners.”……“It is a matter of good and prudent public policy for advanced educational degrees to be awarded in a fully transparent manner, naming the examiners who approved the award. The importance of public confidence in the intergrity of degree awards overrides any inconvenience or personal objection of either students or examiners.”
大意：針對各大學是否揭露考官身份的做法不一，已向英國的內閣辦公室提出《信息自由法》的修正案，要求公立大學的高等學位資格驗證不能列在豁免清單內，因為公眾對於正確授予學位的信心應凌駕於個人不便之上。

—（December 6, 2022）A correspondence officer for the Cabinet Office in the United Kingdom has stated that no effort to amend the Freedom of Information Act will be made to modify the personal data exclusion.……“The Government considers that the existing definition of personal data works well and does not intend to create a new definition, or change the existing understanding of what identifiers fall into the definition of personal data. The Government will therefore not be amending section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act.”……Thus far the Department of Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport has declined to amend the Data Protection Act to close the personal data loophole on examiners. Now the Cabinet Office has refused to amend the Freedom of Information Act to correct the gap in public disclosure of examination information leaving the public left to wonder who approved President Tsai's thesis.……The campaign against Peng has recently ramped up with a refusal to renew his ROC passport in an apparent bid to obtain his deportation to Taiwan where he has been ordered arrested.
大意：英國的內閣辦公室認為現有的個資定義運作良好，無意利用修法來堵住學術詐欺的漏洞。目前遭到通緝的彭文正已無法繼續使用中華民國護照，反對聲浪愈發高漲。

—（December 17, 2022）Rishi Sunak, the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has received a request to review a Cabinet Office decision to not seek an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to close an academic fraud loophole.……“The Cabinet Office declined to consider a proposal to amend the Freedom of Information Act to safeguard against academic fraud at public universities. The need is demonstrated by an ongoing controversy concerning Republic of China President Tsai Ing-wen. The controversy has led to a half-dozen Decision Notices by the Information Commissioner's Office and four Tribunal cases involving use of the FOIA to resolve questions on the validity of Tsai's degree award.”“Two Upper Tribunal Decisions have been issued closing off the FOIA as an avenue for transparency of the degree-awarding process, thus your review of the Cabinet Office decision to not amend the law is needed.”……Section 40(2) of the FOIA: “Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if— (Proposed amendment:) unless such information is used in the verification of qualification for advanced degrees at public universities.”
大意：由於內閣辦公室拒絕修法，已要求英國首相重新審視此事。提議讓《信息自由法》有關個資的第40(2)的條文增加但書：與信息請求有關的任何個資皆可豁免——除非用於公立大學高級學位資格的驗證。