15 / 24
15
PCPD News 私隱專員公署通訊•
Issue no. 28
兩名教師（投訴人）要求查閱校方對他們
作出紀律處分的紀錄中的個人資料。校
方以有關資料獲豁免於條例第
58(1)(d)
，
(e)
及
(f)
為理由拒絕。投訴人不滿，逐向
公署投訴學校。
結果：投訴得直
私隱專員在考慮條例第
58(1)
條
(d)
款是
否適用時認為，案中投訴人受紀律處分
所涉及的行為，並不算是「嚴重不當行
為」，而有關處分亦只是警告。
校方認為披露有關文件予投訴人，會對
學校教職員的士氣及運作帶來負面影
響。但是專員亦指出，校方聲稱向投訴
人披露有關資料會令學校蒙受的所謂「損
失」，與第
58(1)
條
(e)
款所指的「嚴重經濟
損失」相距甚遠，故此豁免不適用。
校方亦無法證明兩位投訴人的不當行為
對學校管理的法定運作造成嚴重的負面
影響，專員認為學校引用第
58(1)(f)
的理
據不足。
私隱專員發出執行通知，指令學校依從
投訴人的查閱資料要求，並修訂學校
處理查閱個人資料要求的指引。校方接
受，並已遵從上述指令。
Two teachers (the Complainants) made
data access requests (“DARs”) to a
school for their personal data contained
i n documen t s abou t t he s choo l ’ s
disciplinary action against them. The
school refused the DARs on the ground
that the requested data was exempt
under sections 58(1)(d), (e) and (f) of
the Ordinance. The Complainants were
dissatisfied with the school’s replies and
lodged complaints with the PCPD.
Outcome: Complaint Upheld
Privacy Commissioner held that, in
respect of the applicability of section
58(1)(d) of the Ordinance, the behaviour
of the Complainants did not amount
to “
serious improper conduct
” as the
disciplinary action concerned was just a
warning.
The school submitted that disclosure
of the concerned documents to the
Complainants would adversely affect the
morale of teaching staff and the function
of the school. However, the Commissioner
considered that the “loss” the school
claimed was too remote from “
significant
financial loss
” and did not satisfy the
requirement of section 58(1)(e).
PCPD in action
公署動態
Case in Brief
個案摘要
Mark Your Diary
活動日誌
Resources Updates
資源快訊
Statistics
統計
Glossary
詞彙
Technology Updates
科技新知
Likewise, the school had failed to prove
how the misconduct of two teachers
would have a significant adverse impact
on the school’s statutory function of
school management. The Commissioner
consequently dismissed the ground for
exemption under section 58(1)(f) of the
Ordinance.
An Enforcement Notice was served on
the school directing it to comply with the
DARs and devise guidelines for handling
DARs from its staff. The school agreed
with the directions and complied with
the Enforcement Notice accordingly.
Secion 58(1) of the Ordinance
Personal data held for the purpose of –
(d)
the prevention, preclusion
o r r eme d y i n g ( i n c l ud i n g
punishment) of unlawful or
seriously improper conduct, or
dishonesty or malpractice, by
persons;
(e)
the prevention or preclusion
of significant financial loss
arising from (i) any imprudent
business practices or activities
of persons; or (ii) unlawful or
seriously improper conduct, or
dishonesty or malpractice, by
persons;
(f)
a s ce r t a i n i ng whe t he r t he
character or activities of the
data subject are likely to have
a significantly adverse impact
on anything (i) to which the
discharge of statutory functions
by the data user relates; or (ii)
which relates to the discharge
of functions to which this
paragraph applies by virtue of
subsection (3)
are exempt from the provisions
of data protection principle 6
and section 18(1)(b) …
未有小心考慮豁免條文而拒絕查閱資料要求
Refusal of data access requests without carefully
considering whether the relevant exemptions under
the Ordinance were applicable
條例第
58(1)
條
為以下目的持有個人資料，可獲
豁免而不受第
6
保障資料原則及第
18(1)(b)
條的條文所管限。
(d)
任何人所作的不合法或嚴重
不當的行為、或不誠實的行
為或舞弊行為的防止、排除
或糾正（包括懲處）；
(e)
防止或排除因
(i)
任何人輕率的
業務經營手法或活動；或
(ii)
任何人所作的不合法或嚴重
不當的行為、或不誠實的行
為或舞弊行為，而引致的重
大經濟損失；
(f)
確定有關的資料當事人的品
格或活動是否相當可能對以
下事情有重大不利影響：
(i)
由
該資料使用者執行法定職能
所關乎的事情；或
(ii)
與本段
憑藉第
(3)
款而適用的職能的
執行有關的事情