AAB ruled that fabrication or lies told about a person did not amount to his "personal data" under section 2 of the PDPO.
The complainant and friends joined in a social gathering - his picture was taken by a reporter and photographer from a magazine - an article about the gathering was written and published - complainant claimed that a published photograph of him had been taken without his consent - the article about him was complete fabrication, including the attribution to him of a wrong job title - section 2(1) definition of "personal data" and DPP1(2)
The Complaint
The complainant and his friends participated in a social gathering. A reporter and a photographer from a magazine were present during the gathering with a view to write an article on the gathering. Subsequently, an article relating to the gathering was written and published in the magazine. The complainant complained that a published photograph of him had been taken without his consent. He further alleged that a large part of what was written about him was complete fabrication, including the attribution to him of a job title that was wrong.
Findings of the Privacy Commissioner
After conducting preliminary inquiry, the Privacy Commissioner took the view that regarding the alleged covert photographing without the complainant's consent, since the complainant knew that the photographer was present at the scene, he should have known or foreseen that the photographer would take photographs during the gathering and his picture was not taken by means that was unlawful or unfair. In relation to the alleged fabrication of facts, the Privacy Commissioner considered it to be a question on the manner of reporting and, as such, was not meant to be regulated by the PDPO. The alleged wrong description of job title could be due to a misunderstanding. Accordingly, no investigation of the case was considered necessary and the complainant appealed against the decision.
The Appeal
The AAB upheld the Commissioner's decision. In particular, the AAB ruled that fabrication or lies told about a person did not amount to his "personal data" under section 2(1) of the PDPO. Regarding the wrong description of the complainant's job title, the AAB ruled that it was so trivial that the Privacy Commissioner could have totally ignored it.
AAB's decision
The appeal was dismissed.