Hong Kong was the first in Asia to legislate and to establish
an independent privacy commissioner for personal data
covering both the private and the public sectors. The law
which came into operation in 1996 required the Privacy Commissioner,
as part of his functions and responsibilities, to liaise and co-operate
with other persons outside Hong Kong who perform similar functions
in matters of mutual interest concerning the privacy of individuals in
relation to personal data. Twelve years have passed and it is quite
obvious that an international network of data protection authorities is
increasingly more relevant today.
Around the world, new data privacy laws are either passed or actively
considered. In many advanced jurisdictions major reforms are in
progress. Building and maintaining a global network is therefore
essential for a universal data privacy standard to be gauged.
In addition to keeping in constant touch with overseas data protection
authorities, I am committed to taking an active part in the following
two organizations, one global and the other regional, in their
membership and aspirations. |
| "Discussions with privacy commissioners around
the world had also provided us with a far greater
insight than if we had to work in isolation on divers
matters such as breach notifications, privacy issues
with biometrics and data user registration." |
 |
Mr.
Roderick B. Woo, JP
Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data |
|
The International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy
Commissioners (ICDPPC) is the only international forum for data
protection and privacy commissioners to meet annually to discuss
a wide range of data protection issues of mutual concerns. Hong
Kong was honoured in 2007 to be appointed as one of the three
members (together with France and the Netherlands) which made
up the Credential Committee charged with handling applications
for membership and making recommendations to the International
Conference. Hong Kong had also been active in a movement aiming
to consolidate the procedural and organizational arrangements for
the future co-operation between members of that august body.
The Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities (APPA) is a cohesive body drawing
together the data protection authorities in New Zealand and Australia
(including New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern Territories),
Hong Kong, Canada, British Columbia of Canada and South Korea.
It continued to grow in membership and stature. Hong Kong played
host to the 26th Meeting of APPA in November 2006 and will do so
again before long. During the year, Hong Kong gave its full support to APPA's Privacy Awareness Week Campaign which helped promote privacy awareness throughout the region.
By positively participating in these two forums, Hong Kong had
become recognized as a respectable and responsible member
within the regional and the global circles of privacy protection
authorities. We shared our expertise and experience with other
members and at the same time learned from them. One example
was the Commissioner's internal working party which submitted a
comprehensive package of proposals in December 2007 seeking
substantial amendments to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.
Although we did not wait for Hong Kong's own Law Reform
Commission to embark on this venture, my colleagues and I
had been helped by those who were responsible for privacy law
reforms in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada
and elsewhere.
By way of illustration, one of the recommendations made to the
HKSAR Government was that Hong Kong should consider creating a
new offence for anyone knowingly, without the consent of the data
user, to obtain or disclose personal data held or leaked by a data
user, or selling of personal data so obtained. This suggestion was
prompted by the many serious improper uses of personal data that
had been leaked on the Internet in Hong Kong as well as the theft of
identities which had created many problems in other jurisdictions. In
making the suggestion, we were able to draw from the experience
in the U.K. whose privacy law contained a similar provision which
had worked well in practice in the past seven years. Discussions with
privacy commissioners around the world had also provided us with
a far greater insight than if we had to work in isolation on divers
matters such as breach notifications, privacy issues with biometrics
and data user registration.
Data protection is also one of the key concerns of Asia-Pacific
Economic Co-operation (APEC) of which Hong Kong is a member
economy. APEC's Electronic Commerce Steering Group (ECSG) is
responsible for promoting mechanisms to increase the trust and
confidence of participants in electronic commerce. The Data Privacy
Subgroup (DPS) under the ECSG works to foster the development of
compatible approaches to data privacy within the APEC region. It
had developed a Data Privacy Framework which had been endorsed by the APEC Ministers who also endorsed the Data Privacy Pathfinder
Projects devised by DPS to probe the feasibility of setting up rules
to regulate the flow of personal information across borders for
protection of consumers while facilitating electronic commerce. These
developments represent a positive step towards the establishment of
a minimum standard for the protection of personal data applicable to
cross-border data flows within the Asia Pacific region.
During the year, I continued to represent Hong Kong and actively
contributed to the work of the DPS, providing expert opinions and
participating in the Pathfinder Projects. I attended meetings of the
DPS as well as the various inter-sessional telephone conferences. My
Office had, throughout the year, provided written comments on many
draft papers and guidelines.
On the domestic front, I believe the work of this Office over the years
had borne fruit. This is evidenced by the fact that personal data
privacy was a term frequently used in the community and that the
number of enquiries and complaints of a simple nature had decreased
while those that came our way were more complex and sophisticated.
The trend is further reflected in the significant number of enquiries
from law firms and government departments and bureaux which in
the past seemed able to find all the answers to their own problems in
respect of privacy issues.
The period under review had been a busy year for my Office. The
work done by my colleagues in the several divisions are described in
some details in this Annual Report and I shall not repeat them here.
I had been impressed by my colleagues' outstanding performance,
their commitment and devotion to duty throughout the year. It was
due to their collective efforts that this Office had successfully coped
with the many challenges that the year had brought. They were not
civil servants in the strict sense of the term but they had served the
public faithfully and I wish to pay tribute to them.
Roderick Woo
Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong |