Privacy Commissioner responds to a local magazine's editorial on privacy issues

I feel that it is in the public interest that I respond to an editorial which appears in one of Hong Kong’s most popular magazines published yesterday.

The editorial queries what privacy is.  It regards the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data as a government official.  It says that people should not be surprised over Google’s collection of our personal data and suggested that my investigation into the incident is motivated by a desire to please Beijing.  The editorial goes on to complain that government departments have in the past used privacy as an excuse to deny people’s right to information.

The editorial could have told its readers that the only privacy law in Hong Kong is the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance which does not purport to protect an individual’s privacy.  It is a fact that no universal definition of “privacy” has been found nor does the Ordinance attempt to define it.  However, the term “personal data” is clearly defined.  Primarily, the Ordinance regulates the proper collection, handling and other uses of an individual’s personal data.

Hong Kong is among the numerous jurisdictions that have found fault with the Google Street View cars operation.  Privacy commissioners around the world are taking the matter very seriously.  It is inconceivable that their actions are motivated by a desire to please Beijing.

I am not a government official.  I disapprove of the excuses sometimes used by government spokespersons to reject requests rightly by members of the public for information.  I do not have the power to force any government department to disclose any information, and it is unfortunate that Hong Kong is without any legislation resembling a Freedom of Information Act in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the U.K.


END