PCPD News Issue 30

16 / 32

16
PCPD News 私隱專員公署通訊 • Issue no. 30
招聘媒體承諾協助打擊匿名招聘廣告
Recruitment Media Pledge to Join the Fight against Blind Recruitment
Advertisements
過去五年公署共接獲 550 宗有關匿名廣
告1 的查詢。雖然公署曾向刊登匿名廣告
的機構進行循規審查及發出勸喻信，但
違規行為仍然沒有減少。公署於 2014
年 3 月 15 至 22 日期間審視七個主要的
廣告平台，隨機抽樣選出 71 則匿名廣
告作為調查對象。公署在 2014 年 5 月
29 日公佈的調查結果顯示，當中 69 個
案都是以不公平方式收集求職者的個人
資料，因而違反條例保障資料第 1(2) 原
則的規定。
有涉事的機構回應不知道法律規定，部
分埋怨招聘媒體沒有告知或提醒其匿名
廣告有不當之處，亦有刊登廣告者辯稱
可以從其用作回覆的電郵地址內的公司
名稱縮寫或公司全名識別公司身份，或
匿名廣告沒有明確要求求職者提供其個
人資料。
私隱專員並不接納上述辯解，機構不知
道法律規定或埋怨招聘媒體，是不能免
除其遵從條例的責任；而電郵地址並沒
有提供足夠及明確的資料，以識別刊登
廣告者。此外，廣告雖然沒有明示要求
求職者提供個人資料，但由於僱主與求
職者議價能力並不均等，一般求職者會
為求得到工作，而被匿名廣告誘使提供
詳細履歷。
私隱專員已向涉事的刊登廣告者發出執
行通知，指令機構刪除已收集的個人資
料，除非是必須為符合其他法律規定而
保留資料，或為了繼續進行招聘程序；
在這情況下，求職者須獲告知其資料會
被保留，而他們亦有權要求刪除其個人
資料。
匿名廣告顯示公司對法律的無知及不重視
保障私隱及個人資料，僱主應避免刊登
匿名廣告收集求職者的個人資料。如僱主
確實有需要隱藏身份，可以在刊登職位
空缺時使用匿名廣告，但應只限用來接受
求職者的查詢，而不是收集個人資料。
招聘媒體是處於把關的最佳位置，私隱
專員促請招聘媒體考慮加強識別刊登廣
告者的措施，篩選接到的廣告，以識別
收集求職者個人資料的匿名廣告，把不
符規定的廣告退回，要求刊登廣告者作
出修正，及考慮拒絕接受收集求職者個
人資料的匿名廣告。
六個主要招聘媒體其後嚮應私隱專員
的呼籲，包括求職廣場（JobMarket ），
Recruit， 招職（JiuJik），Classified Post ，
JobsDB 及 Career Times。這些招聘媒
體承諾會做好把關工作，防止有人透過
匿名廣告不公平收集個人資料。只有
Jobfinder未向私隱專員的呼籲作出回應。
調 查 報 告
enforcement/commissioners_findings/
investigation_reports/files/R14_6242_c.pdf
The PCPD has received 550 enquiries
in relation to Blind Advertisements 1.
(“Blind Ads”) over the past five years.
Compliance checks were conducted
and advisory letters were issued to
the organisations placing Blind Ads,
but the malpractice has continued
unabated. The PCPD conducted a
survey from 15 to 22 March 2014 in
respect of seven major advertising
platforms, and selected 71 Blind Ads
on a random basis for investigation.
At a press conference held on 29 May
2014, the results revealed that 69 of
them were found to be in breach of
Data Protection Principle 1(2) of the
Ordinance for soliciting job applicants'
personal data in an unfair manner.
Some of the organisations involved
explained that they were ignorant of
the legal requirements, while other
blamed the recruitment media for not
advising them or reminding them of
the impropriety of their Blind Ads.
Seven argued either that the company's
identity could be discerned from
the initials or full company name
i nco r po ra t ed i n t he r e t u r n ema i l
address, or that the Blind Ads did not
include an express solicitation for the
job applicant's personal data.
The Commissioner did not accept
any of the above-mentioned defence
arguments. Ignorance of the law or
blaming the recruitment media did not
exonerate the organisations from their
obligations under the Ordinance. Email
addresses did not provide sufficient,
unambiguous information to identify
t he adve r t i s e r s . Al so , t ak i ng i n t o
account the disparity in bargaining
power between employers and job
seekers, the Blind Ads, as presented,
would be more than likely to lure
ordinary job seekers to provide their
full curriculum vitae in an attempt to
secure a job, even if there were no
express solicitation of personal data in
the advertisements.
Th e a d v e r t i s e r s i n v o l v e d w e r e
issued an enforcement notice by the
Commissioner directing them to delete
the personal data they had collected,
unless it had to be retained to satisfy
certain legal requirements, or for a
continuing recruitment process, in
which case the job applicants had to be
informed and given the option to demand
the deletion of their personal data.
A Blind Ad is counter-productive as it
公署動態
PCPD in Action