Collection of ID card numbers is allowed if done pursuant to a statutory power or is necessary to safeguard against loss on the collecting party that is more than trivial in the circumstances or to prevent or detect crime.
Q: (a) We are a government department. In the collection of revenue, if the counter officer receives a $1,000.00 banknote and is not sure whether or not the banknote is counterfeit, does he has the right to take down the ID card number of the client?
(b) If the answer to question (a) is "Yes", does the client have the right to take down the ID card number of the counter officer when he receives a change of $500.00 from the counter officer?
A: Your enquiry relates to the collection of ID card numbers.
Pursuant to 2.3 of the Code of Practice on the ID Card number and other personal identifiers ("the Code"), ID card numbers should not be collected except in the circumstances set out therein. One of these circumstances is where the collection is done pursuant to a statutory power to require the furnishing of the ID card number (paragraph 2.3.1 refers). For example, a public officer, has the power to require any person who holds an ID card to furnish the number of that card in dealings with Government. A second circumstance under which an ID card number may be collected under the Code is where this is necessary to prevent or detect crime (paragraph 2.3.2.2. refers). A third circumstance is to enable identification of an individual where this is necessary to safeguard against loss on the part of the collecting party that is more than trivial in the circumstances (paragraph 2.3.3.3 refers).
The first question appears to come under the first of the above-mentioned circumstances. If so, such collection is allowed under the Code. Given that such collection is done in order to trace the payee in the event that the bank note is counterfeit, the second circumstance mentioned above also seems to apply. In theory, the third circumstance mentioned above might also apply. In practice, however, it is not clear to us whether the Government would, as a matter of policy, treat the recovery of $1,000 itself as sufficient reason for tracing an individual who has tendered a counterfeit banknote in ignorance of such fact. However, as it is only necessary for the situation concerned to come within one of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2.3 for the collection of ID card number to be permitted under the Code, it should not be necessary to argue this point.
As regards the second question none of the circumstances mentioned above appear to apply. An individual receiving a $500 banknote does not have any statutory authority to require the furnishing of the ID card number of the individual providing the same. Further, where an individual receives change from a counter staff of a Government department any requirement to identify the staff member concerned in order to trace the origin of the banknote should be met by knowing the location of the counter and the name of the staff member concerned. We also consider that none of the other circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2.3 of the Code apply to this situation. On this basis, we conclude that under the second situation mentioned by you the collection of ID card numbers is not permitted by the law.
