PCPD News Issue 30

PCPD News

私隱專員公署通訊

•

Issue no. 30

Q2: But surely the calls must have

brought some benefits to some

people?

A2:

The 2014 figures show fewer

people reported gains from the

calls:

Q3: Are the 2014 figures statistically

valid?

A3: Yes, for most of the figures

quoted above. The researcher

t he PCPD commi s s i oned t o

unde r t a k e t he 2014 s u r ve y

was the same researcher who

undertook the 2008 survey.

The statistical testing of the

2014 survey results and the

difference between the 2008

and 2014 results are found in

the full report at

www.pcpd

o r g . h k / e n g l i s h / r e s o u r c e s _

centre/publications/surveys/

f i l e s / p2p_ su r vey_e . pd f . The

broad picture revealed by the

survey results is indisputable,

namely, while the P2P calls have

successfully brought benefits to

a relatively small proportion of

the population, the majority has

been caused nuisance and the

trend is worsening.

Q4: Any tightening of the regulation

o f P 2 P c a l l s wo u l d a f f e c t

adversely the employment and

livelihood of tens of thousands

o f p e o p l e e n g a g e d i n t h e

telemarketing industry?

A4:

The cost of maintaining the

status quo is the inconvenience

and nuisance caused to the

ma j o r i t y o f t he popu l a t i on .

This contrasts with the position

in Singapore where a do-not-

call register (for P2P calls, text

messages and fax messages) was

set up in early 2014 and, in an

effort to enrich the value of the

jobs in the domestic economy,

they do not mind a reduction in

the low value-add telemarketing

activities. If Hong Kong follows

suit, the worry about loss in jobs

could be addressed by allowing

a suitably long period for the

transition. The proposed register

could even be implemented on a

sector by sector basis rather than

on a full-scale basis. Assistance

could be provided to the affected

employees to upskill themselves

to take up higher value-add jobs.

Q5: H a s s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n b y

t h e f i n a n c e , i n s u r a n c e ,

telecommunications and call

c en t r e s be en s uc c e s s f u l i n

minimising the nuisance caused

to the public?

A5:

I t i s n o t m a n d a t o r y f o r

telemarketers to join the trade

associations of these sectors.

Compliance with the relevant

codes of practice drawn up by

these associations is voluntary.

Q6: The proposed register would be

ineffective to curb calls made

outside Hong Kong, particularly

if the calls are made without the

use of personal data.

A6:

The setting up of an accreditation

system by the local telemarketing

industry to raise the professional

standards of its members is worth

considering. Accredited callers

could distinguish themselves

from non-accredited callers

(including those operating from

outside Hong Kong) by using

telephone lines bearing unique

and readily-recognised prefixes

(to be specially assigned by the

Government).

Q7: Are the new provisions under

the Ordinance good enough to

deter unwanted P2P calls?

A7:

Th e Or d i n a n c e i s e n g a g e d

only when the calls involve

the use of personal data. The

2014 survey revealed that only

2 7% r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d

that over half of the calls they

received specified their names,

implying that the problem of

P2P calls is due more to cold

calls not involving the use of

personal data. The advantage

of the proposed register is that

it can cover all calls, including

r a n d om l y g e n e r a t e d c a l l s

without the use of personal data.

Further, under the Ordinance,

the consent to receive marketing

messages and the subsequent

e x e r c i s e o f o p t i n g - o u t a r e

a r r anged on a company by

company basis. By contrast, the

proposed register is a one-stop-

shop that enables the consumer

t o op t ou t o f a l l unwan t ed

telemarketing calls at one go

and at the outset. Regulation

under the Ordinance and setting

up of the proposed register can

complement each other.

A8:

Is it easier for the proposed

register to be set up under the

Unsolicited Electronic Messages

Or d i n a n c e ( “UEMO” ) a n d

administered by the OFCA,

or under the Ordinance and

administered by the PCPD?

Q8: Th e U EMO o p t i o n s h o u l d

be e a s i e r. The UEMO i s s o

structured that if it is decided in

future to bring P2P calls into its

ambit, such decision could be

effected expeditiously by way of

an amendment notice published

in the Gazette under section

7. Besides, as OFCA is already

admi n i s t e r i ng a do - no t - ca l l

messages and fax messages,

it would be administratively

expedient for them to take on

P2P calls. The administering of

the P2P call register by PDPO

would not be conducive to the

efficient use of public funds and

the public would certainly find

the arrangement confusing and

less than customer-friendly.

2008 2014

Proportion of respondents

who had derived benefits

from some (not all) of the

calls

13% 6%

Proportion of respondents

w h o h a d c o n c l u d e d

commercial transactions

during some (not all) of the

calls

21% 16%

基數為曾收到人對人直銷電話的受訪者，並不包括那些從不認為直銷電話構成不便的受訪者。

All respondents who had received P2P calls, excluding those who never considered that P2P calls caused inconvenience to them.