13 / 24
13
PCPD News
私隱專員公署通訊
•
Issue no. 32
Webb. If a user entered the Complainant’s
name in the “search people” box, Webb-
site would bring the user to the “Who’s
Who” page, and the three hyperlinks were
embedded under the item “Articles”. By
clicking on “Articles” and then on the
hyperlinks, the user would be taken to the
three anonymised judgments in the Legal
Reference System of the Judiciary’s website.
According to Webb-site, its objective was
“to provide independent commentary
on corporate and economic governance,
business, finance, investment and
regulatory affairs in Hong Kong.” The
Complainant was aggrieved and hence
lodged a complaint with the PCPD
against Mr Webb.
The PCPD decided that Mr Webb had
contravened DPP 3 of the Ordinance by
publishing those three hyperlinks with
the Complainant’s name revealed on
Webb-site, which effectively disclosed
her identity in the three anonymised
judgments, and served upon Mr Webb
an Enforcement Notice directing him
to remove those three hyperlinks from
the Webb-site. The three judgments are
matrimonial proceedings touching on her
private life but not public duty. Mr Webb
subsequently lodged an appeal against
PCPD’s decision and the service of the
Enforcement Notice, and the appeal was
heard before the AAB on 13 July this
year.
The AAB’s Decision
The AAB upheld the PCPD’s decision and
the issuance of the Enforcement Notice
and made the following findings:
The AAB held that DPP 3 is directed
against the misuse of personal data,
regardless of whether the relevant
personal data has been published
elsewhere or in the public domain and
that Mr Webb was a data user governed
by the Ordinance.
The AAB also held that on a proper
construction of subsection (4) of DPP
3, “the purpose for which the data was
to be used at the time of the collection
of the data” referred to the purpose for
which the data was originally collected.
In this case, the Judiciary was the person
who first collected the Complainant’s
data, and its purposes in collecting
the Complainant’s personal data were
to enable its judgments to be utilised
as “legal precedents on points of law,
practice and procedure of the courts and
of public interests”. The AAB was of the
view that Mr Webb’s purpose of using
the Complainant’s personal data (i.e.
reporting and publication for general
use) in Webb-site was not consistent with
the Judiciary’s purposes of publishing
the three judgments, and it therefore
concluded that Mr Webb did use the
Complainant’s personal data for a “new
purpose” in contravention of DPP 3.
The AAB also took the view that the
balance between freedom of expression
and personal data privacy protection
struck by the Commissioner was not
unreasonable.
The AAB rejected Mr Webb’s argument
that the common law principle of
open justice would exempt him from
any breach of DPP 3 under section
60B(a) of the Ordinance, as Mr Webb
was not required by any principle of
law to publish the personal data of the
Complainant on Webb-site.
Decision of the AAB
www. p c p d . o r g . h k / e n g l i s h / f i l e s /
casenotes/AAB_54_2014.pdf
三間公司被控違反直接促銷新條文而罪名成立
Three Companies Convicted of Offences under the New Direct Marketing
Regulatory Regime
《
2012
年個人資料（私隱）（修訂）條例》
中加強規管直接促銷的條文於
2013
年
4
月
1
日實施後，至今共有三間公司被
定罪，被判罰港幣一萬至三萬元不等。
其中兩宗個案，都是被控沒有依從當事
人拒收直銷訊息的要求。另一個案則是
一間儲存服務供應商被控在使用客戶個
人資料進行直銷前，未有採取指明的行
動通知客戶及先獲得客戶的同意。
根據條例第
35G(3)
條，服務供應商如
收到顧客有關停止使用其個人資料作直
接促銷的要求，須在不向該當事人收費
的情況下，依從該項要求。同時應尊重
顧客的個人資料，不可濫用。而為確保
符合規定，該服務供應商應備存一份拒
收直銷訊息的顧客名單，並停止使用顧