隱私題在 Part 3 已經變成必考——CCTV、社群媒體資料、AI 監控、政府數據蒐集，全都會出現。台灣考生常用「政府很壞」一邊倒答，但 Band 7+ 要的是 trade-off 思考：安全 vs 自由、效率 vs 控制。
五個常見角度
| 角度 | 題目範例 | |------|----------| | 公共監控 | Are CCTV cameras in public spaces a good idea? | | 個人資料 | Should companies be allowed to collect user data? | | 國家安全 vs 自由 | Should governments monitor citizens for security reasons? | | 數位足跡 | Is online privacy realistic anymore? | | 工作場所監控 | Should employers be allowed to monitor workers? |
5 題代表題 + Band 7+ 範例
Q1. Are CCTV cameras in public places a good idea?
It really depends on the context. Generally speaking, cameras in genuinely public spaces — train stations, busy streets, transport hubs — make sense; they help with serious crime investigation and most people accept the visibility trade-off. On the other hand, blanket facial-recognition systems that track individuals across cities, like in some Chinese cities, cross into something different — that’s not just security, it’s a surveillance infrastructure. So the design matters more than the technology itself.
Q2. Should companies be allowed to collect personal data from users?
The honest answer is the current model is broken. Users technically consent through 50-page terms of service nobody reads, and the data ends up training algorithms users don’t see. Europe’s GDPR has shown that stricter rules don’t actually break the internet — companies just adapt. Arguably the principle should be that data collection has to be proportional to the actual service. Targeted advertising at the level we have now isn’t proportional; it’s industrial.
Q3. Should governments be able to monitor citizens for national security?
Some monitoring is unavoidable in a modern state — counterterrorism, organised crime — but the burden of proof has to be high. The Snowden revelations showed how easily "national security" expands into mass surveillance of ordinary people. So I’d say monitoring should require specific suspicion, judicial oversight, and clear time limits. The default has to be privacy, with surveillance as the exception, not the other way round.
Q4. Is online privacy still possible in 2025?
Practical privacy, mostly no — that ship has largely sailed for most users. Anyone using mainstream platforms is leaving a trail that’s effectively permanent. That said, there’s a difference between privacy and obscurity, and obscurity is still achievable through encrypted messaging, VPNs and conscious data hygiene. Arguably the bigger shift needed is cultural: treating online activity as inherently public unless you actively protect it.
Q5. Should employers be allowed to monitor employees at work?
Reasonable monitoring of work-related activity is generally fine — equipment use, security, productivity at a high level. The line gets crossed when monitoring becomes pervasive: keystroke logging, webcam checks every few minutes, AI scoring of facial expressions on video calls. That kind of surveillance has been linked to worse mental health and worse output, ironically. So light monitoring with clear policies, yes; pervasive monitoring, no — and the law should reflect that distinction more clearly than it currently does.
三層結構提醒
Claim — It depends on / Generally speaking / I’d say
Reason — because / since / the evidence shows
Example — GDPR / Snowden / Chinese facial recognition / keystroke logging主題詞彙（Band 7 級）
| 詞彙 | 中文 | 範例 chunk | |------|------|------------| | surveillance | 監控 | the rise of mass surveillance | | privacy concerns | 隱私疑慮 | mounting privacy concerns | | data protection | 資料保護 | strong data protection laws | | facial recognition | 人臉辨識 | facial-recognition systems | | data harvesting | 資料蒐集 | industrial-scale data harvesting | | informed consent | 知情同意 | meaningful informed consent | | judicial oversight | 司法監督 | require judicial oversight | | civil liberties | 公民自由 | protect civil liberties | | security trade-off | 安全代價 | the security-privacy trade-off | | encryption | 加密 | end-to-end encryption | | digital footprint | 數位足跡 | manage your digital footprint | | GDPR | 歐盟資料保護法 | GDPR-style regulation | | big data | 大數據 | the abuses of big data | | chilling effect | 寒蟬效應 | surveillance has a chilling effect |
台灣考生常見陷阱：政府/科技公司全黑化
"Government and big tech are evil. They want to control us." ——一邊倒陰謀論，Band 5。
修正：承認 trade-off + 用具體政策對比：
Surveillance does carry real risks — the Snowden revelations made that clear. On the other hand, some monitoring is genuinely necessary; counterterrorism cases that have been disrupted weren’t magic. Generally speaking, the question isn’t "surveillance yes or no", it’s about what oversight, transparency and limits are built in. Europe’s GDPR points one direction; China’s social credit system points another. The institutional design is everything.