Email name and address - Abbreviated name - Section 2 - Definition of personal data - Practicable - Identity - Directly or indirectly ascertained - DPP 3 - Purpose - Directly related - Handling enquiry (AAB 25/0012)
The Complaint
On 30 July 2011, the Appellant sent an email ("30/7 Email") to a government bureau ("Bureau A"), to enquire about certain parts of the Civil Service Code ("Code") and whether Clause 3.2 thereof and the Guide to Judicial Conduct were in contradiction. The Appellant sent the 30/7 Email by the email name and address <"Judiciary Hongkong" hkjudiciary@ymail.com> and signed as "Lau TL".
The 30/7 Email was forwarded by Bureau A to another Bureau ("Bureau B") for reply. Later, Bureau B sent the Appellant an email in reply ("Reply Email"), stating that the Code did not govern the conduct matters of judicial officers and copied the Reply Email (with the 30/7 Email attached, and collectively referred to as “Email”) to the Judiciary for information.
There followed further correspondence between the Appellant and Bureau B in which the Appellant complained that the Email was copied to the Judiciary without her consent. The Appellant subsequently lodged the complaint with the Commissioner.
Findings by Privacy Commissioner
The Commissioner gave 3 reasons for not pursuing the complaint further under Section 39(2)(d) of the Ordinance :-
(i) Reason 1 : The mere letters T and L could be the abbreviations for numerous words. Even if taken together with the Appellant's email address , it would not be practicable for the Appellant's identity to be ascertained from the initials. Hence, no "personal data" of the Appellant was involved.
(ii) Reason 2 : Even assuming the case involved the disclosure of the Appellant’s "name" which amounted to her "personal data", the Appellant's "name" together with her email address were not sensitive information.
(iii) Reason 3 : It was not unreasonable for Bureau B to send a copy of the Reply Email for the Judiciary’s information, given the Appellant's enquiry concerned the purview of the Judiciary in relation to the Guide to Judicial Conduct. The disclosure of 30/7 Email in the Reply Email to the Judiciary was directly related to the purpose of the 30/7 Email, i.e. to handle the Appellant's enquiry and therefore would not amount to a contravention of DPP 3 on the part of Bureau B.
The Appeal
(i) Reason 1 : The AAB agreed with Reason 1. "Lau TL" was a name shared by many and the email address <"Judiciary Hongkong" hkjudiciary@ymail.com> in no way reveals the identity of the Appellant. It is not practicable from "Lau TL" and <"Judiciary Hongkong" hkjudiciary@ymail.com> (even when read together) for the identity of the Appellant to be directly or indirectly ascertained. They do not constitute personal data as defined in section 2 of the Ordinance. In any event the fact that the Appellant might have been known to the Judiciary because of some unrelated previous events did not turn the abbreviated name and the email address into "personal data" within the meaning of the Ordinance.
(ii) Reason 3 : The AAB agreed with Reason 3 that even if the abbreviated name and email address constituted "personal data", there was no contravention of DPP 3. By forwarding the Email to the Judiciary for their information, Bureau B was referring the enquiry to the appropriate department for further handling and was directly using the data for the purpose for which they were to be used at the time of collection, namely to deal with the Appellant's enquiry.
(iii) Reason 2 : The AAB did not find it necessary to rely on Reason 2, since it has already found that the disclosure of the Email to the Judiciary was not in contravention of DPP3 (under Reason 3).
The AAB's Decision
The AAB confirmed the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the appeal.
uploaded on web in Novemeber 2013