|
Sharing
of Positive Credit Data Code Consultation Report Released
|
|
| Privacy
Commissioner Raymond Tang briefed the press on the consultation
report on the sharing of positive credit data. |
On
23 January 2003, Privacy Commissioner Raymond Tang released the
report on the public consultation on a set of proposed provisions
on consumer credit data protection in relation to the financial
industry's proposal on the sharing of positive credit data.
A
total of 282 submissions were received from individuals, private
and public organizations, professional bodies, and representative
associations. Respondents generally supported the proposals and
many of them had raised comments and offered suggestions in relation
to privacy safeguards. Taking the views collected during the public
consultation into serious considerations, some amendments to the
draft proposals contained in the Consultation Document were made
accordingly.
To
view the Consultation Report please click on www.pcpd.org.hk/english/ordinance/codes.html.
It
is anticipated that the revised Code will be gazetted in mid-May
and take effect early June 2003.
|
|
| Privacy
Commissioner Raymond Tang spoke at the Privacy Issues Forum
at New Zealand. |
Privacy
Commissioner Raymond Tang attended two high-level international
privacy workshops and meetings in February and March.
On
13 February, Mr. Tang made a presentation on the implementation
of data privacy principles by governments at the APEC Data Privacy
Workshop hosted by the Electronic Commerce Steering Group in Chiang
Rai, Thailand. The workshop, entitled "Addressing Privacy Protection:
Charting a Path for APEC", focused on the importance of effective
consumer privacy protection arising from trans-border data flows
in the context of e-commerce development among APEC economies.
To
obtain a copy of the presentation, please visit the PCPD web site
at www.pcpd.org.hk/english/infocentre/apec_feb03.html.
To
check for updates, please visit the APEC web site at www.export.gov/apececommerce/.
On
26 and 27 March, Mr Tang attended the 16th Privacy Agencies of New
Zealand, Australia Plus Hong Kong (PANZA) Meeting in Wellington,
New Zealand. The PANZA Meeting is an annual gathering of privacy
commissioners from Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong to discuss
and share views on privacy issues. Mr. Tang also made a presentation
on the consultation on monitoring of employees at work in Hong Kong
at the "Privacy Issues Forum", organized by the New Zealand
Privacy Commission on 28 March. Delegates from the region attended
to discuss the protection of privacy arising from public health
system, genetics and surveillance.
|
|
| Privacy
Commissioner Raymond Tang and President of KISA, Mr. Whie-kap
Cho signed the MOU in Seoul, Korea. |
HK
and Korea sign MOU to foster Personal Data Privacy Protection
The
PCPD signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Korea Information
Security Agency (KISA) on 27 November 2002 to foster better understanding
and co-operation on the protection of personal data privacy.
This
is the first bilateral agreement on personal data privacy that Hong
Kong has made with another jurisdiction. It recognizes the importance
of international co-operation in reducing personal data privacy
intrusion in the information age. Whilst recognizing the benefits
of free flow of information, authorities around the world are increasingly
concerned as to the effect of cross-border data flows that are not
subject to a consistent framework of monitoring and regulation.
The
MOU sets forth the goal of enhancing the co-operation and joint
research and development in education and training programmes. Hong
Kong will share experiences with KISA in dealing with various common
issues such as e-smart card, cyber privacy, surveillance activities,
consumer credit reports and public record information. Although
non-binding, the MOU is a mutual expression of both parties' genuine
interest in exploring opportunities for future co-operation.
Privacy
Commissioner Mr. Tang said that the PCPD would continue to work
towards similar bilateral arrangements with other regional partners.
Community
Perceptions Towards Surveillance Cameras in Public Places in Hong
Kong
The
PCPD has released the results of its sixth survey to gauge the public's
views towards personal data privacy in Hong Kong. The survey was
conducted by the Social Sciences Research Centre of the University
of Hong Kong between June and September 2002.
[Image of image]The
survey was designed to gain insights into the public's view of using
surveillance cameras in public places in Hong Kong. Its objective
was to better understand the degree to which the public found surveillance
acceptable and under what circumstances. It also identified issues
that the public found sensitive, such as the location of the cameras
and the purpose of surveillance. A number of real-time monitoring
and recorded monitoring situations were also examined in the survey.
Research
was carried out in three phrases. In the first stage, focus group
interviews were conducted to corroborate views and identify relevant
"privacy" issues from selected sectors of the community,
including housing estate residents, MTR and KCR communters, car
owners, Lan Kwai Fong visitors and workers, university students,
tourists and retail shopkeepers. In the second stage, using a questionnaire
developed from the results of the focus group interviews, 1,103
households were surveyed by phone. In the third stage, in-depth
interviews were conducted with organizations that operate surveillance
cameras in public places, such as car parks and retail malls.
The
survey results reflect general support for surveillance cameras
in public places in certain circumstances. Most people agree that,
while both security and privacy issues are equally important, crime
prevention and detection justify the use of surveillance cameras
at specific locations, such as high crime areas or where there is
a high risk of accidents during festive times.
Nearly
all focus group respondents supported the use of surveillance cameras
in public places for crime prevention, public safety, crowd control
and security purposes. The exception was the use of such cameras
in taxis or at public beaches. There were also diverse views regarding
their use in Lan Kwai Fong. Some considered its use to be justified
during festivals or special occasions. But the majority of the respondents
agreed that cameras should not be used to monitor specific individuals,
in particular if the data is being used by government agencies.
There was also considerable concern regarding the control of the
cameras' use and access to the recorded contents. There was overwhelming
support for the public to be notified if cameras are being used
as well as setting of guidelines to avoid potential abuse.
The
telephone survey found that the majority of the respondents supported
the use of surveillance cameras with recording capabilities over
live monitoring for crime prevention, while, for car parks, the
support was 51%, and 39% for train platforms and 38% for shops.
There was almost unanimous agreement that the recorded tapes should
be kept for at least 24 hours, with strong support for tapes to
be retained for over one week.
In
terms of controlling surveillance, there was widespread support
for a PCPD code, notification requirements, security measures, access
restrictions but not for licensing. The most popular option was
security requirements for tapes (71% essential), public notice of
monitoring (57% essential), restricted access to tapes in the case
of crime (56% essential), a PCPD code of conduct (43% essential),
banning the use of cameras in some situations (43% essential), banning
the surveillance of individuals (41% essential) and licensing camera
use (29% essential).
Respondents
believe that privacy concerns should be addressed in surveillance,
even though they may have less priority than security and crime
prevention issues. However, there is a clear need to regulate the
use and purpose of surveillance cameras in terms of accessing recorded
information, public notification and tape security and how long
data should be retained. There is also a need for supervision, in
the form of a code of practice drawn by the PCPD, to ensure proper
control and to avoid potential abuse. Finally, respondents do not
see an immediate need to set up licensing requirements for the installation
of surveillance cameras, which suggests that drawing up guidelines
or a code of practice may be viewed as providing greater privacy
assurance to the community.
The
survey has provided valuable insights into the public's view towards
surveillance cameras. Privacy Commissioner Raymond Tang said that
the PCPD will continue to monitor the use of surveillance cameras
in public places and to discuss with relevant parties the protection
of personal data privacy for individuals.
For
further details, please visit the PCPD website at www.pcpd.org.hk/english/publications/opinionsurvey.html.
|