Whether recording by a debt collection agency of conversations with debtors amounts to unfair collection of the debtors personal data

Q: A debt collection agency had installed a centralized telephone recording system to provide evidence against false accusations by debtors that they were verbally abused or threatened. The question is whether such recording of conversations contravenes the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance ("the Ordinance")?

A: Under Data Protection Principle ("DPP") 1 (2) in Schedule 1 to the Ordinance, a data user is required to use only those means of collecting personal data that are lawful and fair in the circumstances. Recording conversation is generally considered by our Office as privacy-intrusive. Whether such recording is nevertheless fair in the circumstances of the case depends on, among others, whether the purpose to be achieved justifies the use of that means in that case. Also relevant to this issue is whether less privacy-intrusive means are available to achieve the same result. In case that the purpose of the recording is to provide evidence against false accusations from debtors that they were verbally abused or threatened by debt collectors calling them, it appears to us that the circumstances justify the collection of personal data by such means.

However, DPP 1(3) of the Ordinance requires that, when personal data are collected from the individuals who is the subject of the data, he or she should be informed of certain information. Where a debt collection agent collects personal data directly from the data subject, it is required under DPP 1(3) to inform the data subject whether it is obligatory for him to supply the data and the purpose for which such data are to be used unless the provision of such prior information to the debtors would be likely to prejudice the purpose of debt recovery.