|
Following is a question by the Hon Lau Kong-wah and a reply by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Mr Stephen Lam, in the Legislative Council today (November 11):
Question:
It has been reported that nowadays new concealed video-recording and telephone tapping devices keep replacing the old ones on the market, and such kinds of devices look the same as common items and accessories (such as watches, fountain pens, spectacles, electronic key-holders of cars, etc.). Members of the public may at any time buy the relevant products at a few hundred dollars only in the shopping centres for electronic products in Hong Kong or on the Internet. Moreover, it has also been reported that the proliferation of sales and use of these concealed video-recording and telephone tapping devices is increasingly serious, which not only infringes upon personal privacy, but also poses a heavy psychological burden on members of the public in their daily lives. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of complaints received by the authorities from members of the public in respect of acts of concealed video-recording or telephone tapping by individuals or organisations in the past three years, as well as the venues where such acts took place and the devices used;
(b) whether legislation is currently in place to regulate the sale, possession and use of concealed video-recording and telephone tapping devices; if so, of the number of cases in which prosecution was instituted in the past three years against contraventions of the relevant legislation; if not, whether it will enact legislation to carry out the monitoring; and
(c) given the continual advances in science and technology, concealed video-recording and telephone tapping devices have become more sophisticated, and the privacy of members of the public can easily be infringed without their being aware of it, how the Government ensures that the personal privacy of members of the public will not be violated because of the development of science and technology?
Reply:
President,
(a) At present, there is no specific legislation in place to regulate the acts of concealed video-recording or telephone tapping by non-public officers. Therefore, law enforcement agencies have not kept any record of the number of complaints from members of the public in respect of acts of concealed video-recording or telephone tapping by individuals or organisations.
From 2008 to October 2009, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) received three complaints involving the use of concealed video-recording and telephone tapping devices. All the cases were related to complainees using pinhole camera in hospital or office to monitor the complainants. The PCPD is still conducting investigations under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance to see whether such acts have breached any provision under the Ordinance.
(b) Under section 27 of the Telecommunications Ordinance, a person who damages, removes or interferes with a telecommunications installation for the purpose of interception of a message shall commit a criminal offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for two years. Between January 2007 and September 2009, the Administration did not institute any prosecution under section 27 of the Telecommunications Ordinance.
(c) The report on "Privacy: Regulating the Interception of Communications" released by the Law Reform Commission (LRC) in 1996 recommended that it should be an offence when a person intentionally intercept or interfere with communications (i.e. a telecommunication, a sealed postal packet or a radio transmission) in the course of transmission, other than where authorised by a warrant.
Separately, in its report on "Privacy: The Regulation of Covert Surveillance" released in 2006, the LRC recommended the creation of two new criminal offences to regulate the obtaining of personal information through trespass into private premises or by means of surveillance devices.
The conduct of interception of communications and the use of surveillance devices by public officers is regulated by the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance. However, we should not draw any conclusion lightly that the conduct of non-public officers in this respect should be regulated. These two LRC reports are highly controversial. When the reports were published, the Hong Kong media sector and journalists expressed their worry that the recommendations might compromise press freedom. Accordingly, the Government would not accept the recommendations lightly. In determining the way forward, we have to consider very carefully how we can look after press freedom and privacy at the same time. At the present stage, the Government does not have any plan to enact legislation to put in place a regulation regime in this regard.
Ends/Wednesday, November 11, 2009
|
