Lawyers HK Zoom Forum 19 June 2020 – Privacy Notice

The personal data collected in this form (“the Data”) will be used by Lawyers HK Limited (“Lawyers HK”) for the purposes of considering and processing your registration (“the Registration”) to attend the legal forum to be held on 19 June 2020, making logistical arrangements, compiling statistics and keeping records of your attendance, facilitating the applications for Continuing Professional Development and/or Risk Management Education accreditation of such forum if we consider appropriate, other related matters and/or keeping you informed of any future activity of Lawyers HK at Lawyers HK’s discretion.

In order for Lawyers HK to process the Registration, it is obligatory for you to supply Lawyers HK with the Data requested in this form except as otherwise indicated. The consequence for you if you fail to supply such Data is that Lawyers HK will not be able to process the Registration.  

The Data may be provided to such persons within Lawyers HK whose proper business it is to have access to and assist in the processing of the Registration and related matters.  The Data may also be provided to the CPD course facilitators / workshop leaders / presenters, the Law Society of Hong Kong and other persons who may help Lawyers HK in attaining the purposes mentioned above.  

Any Data that is provided to anyone outside of Lawyers HK will be restricted to what is necessary and not excessive to achieve any intended purpose.

You have the right to request access to and correction of the Data. Any such request should be addressed to the data protection officer of Lawyers HK at lhkinfo1@gmail.com.

Completing the Registration is not a guarantee that you will have a seat in the legal forum. Whether registrants will be assigned seats shall be at Lawyers HK’s discretion taking into account the timing of the registration and other factors it considers appropriate.

披露受廉政公署調查人士身分等資料是否違法?

#披露 受 #廉政公署 調查人士身分等資料是否違法?

根據香港法例第201章 《#防止賄賂條例》第30(1)條,任何人明知或懷疑就任何被指稱或懷疑已犯第II部份所訂罪行的調查正在進行,如無合法權限或合理辯解,而向(a) 該受調查人披露他正受調查的事實或該項調查的任何細節;或 (b)公眾、部分公眾或任何特定人士披露該受調查人的身分或該受調查人正受調查的事實或該項調查的任何細節,即屬犯罪,一經定罪,可處 #罰款$20,000及 #監禁1年

Under Section 30(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201), any person who, while knowing or suspecting that an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II is taking place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to (a) the person who is the subject of the investigation (the subject person) the fact that he is subject to, or any details of, such investigation; or (b) the public, a section of the public or any particular person the identity of the subject person or the fact that the subject person is subject to, or any details of, such investigation, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

其實郭榮鏗究竟代表誰⁉️⁉️⁉️🧐 Who does Dennis Kwok still represent⁉️⁉️⁉️🧐

#香港大律師公會 及 #香港律師會
就 在 高 等 法 院 大 樓 上 的 辱 駡 性 塗 鴉 之 聲 明

香 港 大 律 師 公 會 及 香 港 律 師 會 關 注 傳 媒 報 導 於 2020 年 1 月 1 日 在 高 等 法 院 大 樓 上 具 名 針 對 法 官 的 辱 駡 性 塗 鴉 。 有 關 塗 鴉 令 人 髮 指 並 應 予 以 嚴 正 譴 責 。

《 #基本法 》 第 八 十 五 條 規 定 , 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 法 院 獨 立 進 行 審 判 , 不 受 任 何 干 涉 。 法 院 所 作 出 的 判 決 , 其 分 析 和 理 據 均 詳 細 刊 載 於 判 決 書 中 。 如 要 挑 戰 法 院 的 裁 決 , 上 訴 才 是 恰 當 的 程 序 。

有 關 辱 罵 性 言 論 暗 示 司 法 裁 決 是 基 於 或 受 到 政 治 考 慮 影 響 而 作 出 , 這 是 完 全 沒 有 根 據 的 。 任 何 基 於 法 官 在 履 行 司 法 職 責 時 的 決 定 , 而 侮 辱 或 威 嚇 法 官 和 任 何 企 圖 向 法 官 施 加 公 眾 壓 力 的 行 為 , 都 是 對 法 治 和 司 法 誠 信 的 侮 辱 。

香 港 律 師 會 及 香 港 大 律 師 公 會 強 烈 譴 責 這 些 違 法 行 為 , 並 重 申 其 致 力 捍 衛 香 港 的 法 治 和 司 法 獨 立 的 共 同 決 心 。

Joint Statement of The Hong Kong Bar Association and The Law Society of Hong Kong on graffiti concerning a judge on High Court Building

The Hong Kong Bar Association and The Law Society of Hong Kong note media reports referring to the abusive graffiti against a named judge on the High Court building on 1 January 2020. The graffiti are outrageous and firmly condemned.

Article 85 of the Basic Law provides that the courts of Hong Kong shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. The analysis and reasoning on which a court makes a decision are set out in detail in a judgment. The proper procedure for challenging a court’s decision is by way of an appeal.

Abusive comments implying that judicial decisions were made or influenced by political considerations are wholly unjustified. Any attempt to insult, threaten and bring public pressure on a judge because of decisions made in the course of performing judicial duties is to be deplored as an affront to the rule of law and judicial integrity.

The Law Society of Hong Kong and The Hong Kong Bar Association strongly deplore these criminal acts and reiterate their joint commitment to defend the rule of law and judicial independence in Hong Kong.

#郭榮鏗:對有人對法官做出人身攻擊感遺憾

# 公民黨法律界議員 #郭榮鏗 對有人對法官做出人身攻擊,#只是表示#遺憾」及指這些行為屬於「 #不恰當」。然而,郭榮鏗同時又聲稱守護法治的最大責任在於政府,在過去半年的政治風波中,市民非常清楚看到政府濫權,警察濫捕以及濫用暴力,未受檢控才是破壞法治的真正元兇。

Dennis Kwok : personal attack on judges is regrettable

Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, who represents the legal sector, expressed only “regret” and called the conduct “inappropriate” after learning about the personal attack on a judge.

However, Kwok at the same time alleged that while the government has the responsibility to safeguard the rule of law, abuse of power by authorities and indiscriminate use of violence by the police, both unchecked, are what is actually damaging the rule of law.

刑事毀壞 & 藐視法庭

#刑事毀壞

根據香港法例第200章 《#刑事罪行條例》 第60條,任何人摧毀或損壞屬於他人的財產,一經定罪,最高刑罰為 #監禁十年

#藐視法庭

對法官及司法人員作出 #人身攻擊 及 #辱駡,甚至是向他們作出威嚇,是嚴重挑戰法治及企圖影響司法獨立的行為。藐視法庭涵蓋多種不同的行為。發布誹謗法院或司法人員的言論有可能構成 #藐視法庭,一經定罪,可被判處 #罰款 及 #監禁

Criminal damage

Under Section 60 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), any person who destroys or damages any property belonging to another shall, upon conviction, be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years.

Contempt of court

Personal attacks, insults and even threats against judges and judicial officers would severely undermine the rule of law and put pressure on judicial independence. Contempt of court covers a wide range of conducts. Scandalising the court or judicial officers may constitute contempt of court, and once convicted, shall be punishable by fines and imprisonment.

新年新希望,緩和香港的緊張氣氛 New Year Resolutions to Ease Hong Kong’s Tensions

#香港律師 – 新年新希望,緩和香港的緊張氣氛

香港的社會動盪已持續數月,反映香港有着深層次的問題。在我們迎接新的一年和新的年代之時,我們希望全港市民一起認真地尋找解決辦法,積極地採取行動以緩和香港的緊張氣氛。

1. #爭取和平#停止暴力

我們應該竭力爭取和平,暴力並不是一個選擇。「#攬炒」並不會令我們邁向烏托邦,反而導致死亡、嚴重人身傷害及破壞。

這些負面影響持續,我們的代價亦會越來越大,所以我們必須停止暴力。

每一個人都應該 #譴責暴力,並盡力停止「示威者」的暴力及破壞行為。在暴力面前選擇沉默等同默許暴力及間接支持這些令人髮指的罪行。示威者的訴求並不能靠暴力解決,而應該通過真誠的溝通來處理。

2. #維護法治,恪守法律,耐心尋求真相

法治在香港極為重要,如果我們只選擇遵守某些法律,根本不能維持法治。我們要求示威者不要再犯法,亦希望警方繼續使用最低武力將不法之徒繩之於法。

我們應該以開放的態度去審視及了解事實及其來龍去脈,避免在未核實重要事實前或在司法程序還在進行中過早作出結論。我們要求具有影響力的人士,例如政客、媒體或老師在作出公開陳述及意見時,以事實作為基礎而並非單靠懷疑或揣測。

3.通過適當、迅速的檢控和司法程序以伸張正義

正義必須通過適當的檢控和司法程序得以彰顯。任何聲稱的罪行及非法行為,無論是關於示威者、警察或其他人士都應該根據現有程序妥善處理。現在已有幾千名人士被捕。我們應該爭取更多資源及以其他方法加快對罪犯的檢控及司法程序,例如參考英國處理2011年暴亂的經驗,成立特別暴動法庭。

4.展開真誠的溝通

我們敦促政府善用時間與香港市民就動盪有關的重要問題展開真誠溝通與諮詢,並採取行動重建市民對政府的信任和信心。我們希望政府在經過與市民真誠的溝通後能夠掌握市民的想法,從而提出一個香港市民能接受的向前走的方案。

我們在附件一列出一些需要溝通的重要問題,並在附件二列出對溝通平台的一些建議。

5.擁抱多樣性,避免情緒化的語言和孤立的傾向

香港一向對作為一個理性、向前看、包容多元文化、語言及種族的社會感到自豪。我們必須避免讓憤怒和仇恨影響我們的想法,並要時刻提醒自己保持理性及接受我們每一個人都是社會的持份者。我們往往較容易只與自己相似或同意自己的人談話和相處,這些封閉思想可能會導致排外的心理。我們促請每一個人停止採取任何行動及語言去觸怒、煽動或醜化任何個人或羣衆。我們應與我們的親人及朋友團結起來,包容各自的不同之處。

附件一:某些需要溝通的重要事項

(i) 核實重要事實

有很多意見都是建基於還未核實的事實、謠言、指控或假新聞。很多人都只會將注意力集中在會增強自己想法的事實,而忽略或輕視對自己不利的事實。在事實還未核實或法庭還未作出判決前,我們應停止作出任何嚴重指控。

我們應該溝通並同意有關這次動盪的所有重要事實,並列明當中那些事實還未被核實或同意。我們應該向受暴力或其他嚴重罪行影響的受害人、傳媒、公共交通營運者、物業營運者及政府尋求協助,讓他們提供重要事實。

(ii) #傳媒及假新聞

有些新聞可以是不真實、不正確、不完整、具有誤導成份的,甚至是假的。有些傳媒亦可以是政治不中立的。不專業的或偏頗的傳媒可以對社會產生很壞的影響。我們需要討論監管傳媒行業的制度是否有需要作出修改,例如:

-傳媒的營運許可及持續監控
-記者的營運許可及持續監控
-香港電台的營運
-中立及準確報道的指引
-訂立假新聞法

(iii) #教育工作

有很多學生及18歲以下人士被捕。欺凌及孤立的事件亦在某些學校發生。如果有政治不中立的老師對與他想法不同的意見不能容忍,這樣會不恰當地影響學生,及有可能鼓吹恐懼、憤怒及仇恨。有一些教材可能政治不中立。一些學生可能對中國及香港的歷史與及基本法律概念缺乏正確的理解。我們需要討論教育制度及其相關的法律法規是否有需要作出修改,例如:

-學校的營運許可及持續監控
-老師的執教資格及持續監控
-教材的許可
-通識教育的課程指引
-學習中國及香港歷史
-學習基本法律概念
-保持中立,避免偏頗及不完整資訊的指引

(iv) #檢控 及 #司法程序

-保釋的有關事宜
-政治取態會否影響檢控及司法程序
-法官的任命、退休及罷免
-陪審員制度
-法律援助制度
-量刑具阻嚇性的指引

(v) #警察

-處理投訴及調查有關聲稱違反法律法規的事情,警察投訴及內部調查科及監警會
-使用武力的指引
-使用催淚彈的指引
-展示委任證的指引
-是否應訂立辱警罪

(vi) #獨立檢討

我們需要進一步了解監警會和獨立檢討委員會的運作以及過往的一些暴亂後的檢討,例如英國2011年的暴亂以及香港1967年的暴亂後的檢討。我們應該詳細討論獨立檢討如何進行,包括其範圍、委員會的權限、成員、提交報告的時間及其他重要事項。

(vii) 基本法有關事項

-有關行政長官及立法會議員的雙普選
-第23條的立法

(viii) 重建香港的資金來源

有些人對於用納稅人的款項來重建被暴力示威者破壞的香港是否公平存有疑問。我們應討論款項來源以及重建香港的計劃。

(ix) 房屋、就業、醫療及其他事項

附件二:對溝通平台的一些建議

(i) 在政府機構或其他地點內進行面對面溝通(如果可以)
(ii)採取措施以防止參與者被欺凌或起底
(iii)政府派出足夠的代表參加
(iv) 向廣大市民發出邀請參與討論
(v) 如有需要限制參與者的數目,可通過由會計師或其他專業人士監督以隨機抽樣形式作出篩選
(vi) 可以小組進行討論,並包括由沒有政治背景的律師或其他專業人士作為促進者,以及政府代表
(vii) 如果討論涉及某一界別或羣體,例如傳媒、教育工作或警察,該界別或羣體的代表亦應出席
(viii) 每一參與者應有公平的機會發表意見及聆聽
(ix) 小組討論並不是一次性的,並應該繼續進行直至有關事項已經得到充分討論
(x) 討論的內容可以被公開,但參與者的姓名及個人資料應予以保密

Lawyers HK – New Year Resolutions to Ease Hong Kong’s Tensions

Hong Kong’s social unrest has been continuing for months, exposing deep fissures within our society. As we enter the New Year and a new decade, we urge all Hong Kong residents to come together and seriously attempt to find a solution. We must all actively take steps to work towards the following to ease Hong Kong’s tensions:

1. Strive for Peace, Stop Violence

We should all strive for peace. Violence is never an option. The “we burn, you burn” slogan has not resulted in any progress towards utopia, but instead caused death, serious personal injuries, destruction and damage.

The list goes on. The cost is incalculable and continues to rise. This must stop.

Each and every one of us should condemn violence and do our part to stop the violence, destruction and disruptions caused by “protesters”. Silence in the face of violence is acquiescence and gives implicit support to those who perpetrate these heinous acts. The protesters’ concerns cannot be addressed by violence. Instead, they should be dealt with via genuine communication as we propose below.

2. Uphold the Rule of Law, Abide by the Law, Seek the Truth with Patience

The rule of law is paramount in Hong Kong and this cannot be upheld if we choose to comply with some laws but not others. We call upon protesters not to break the law. We also ask the police to use only the minimum necessary force when bringing to justice criminals who break the law.

We should keep an open mind in processing and understanding facts and context and avoid jumping to conclusions prematurely without verifying material facts or while the judicial process is ongoing. We demand those in a position of influence, such as politicians, the media and teachers, to ensure that their public assertions and commentaries are based on facts and not mere suspicions or speculations.

3. Do Justice through Proper and Speedy Prosecution and Court Processes

Justice must be done through proper prosecution and court processes. Any case of alleged abuse or illegality, whether on the part of protesters, police officers or other persons, should be dealt with properly under existing procedures. Further, thousands of persons have been arrested. We should push for increasing resources and other means to speed up the prosecution and court processes for offenders, such as special riot courts which were used in the UK to handle the 2011 riots.

4. Engage in Genuine Communication

We urge the Government to properly take time to embark on and continue with genuine communication and consultation with Hong Kong residents on important issues relating to the unrest, and take steps to allow trust and confidence to be re-built with people. We hope that after meaningful communication, the Government will have a good grasp of the views of different participants and come up with a proposal for the way forward which will be acceptable to Hong Kong residents.

We set out in Appendix 1 some important issues for communication and in Appendix 2 some parameters regarding the platforms for communication.

5. Embrace Diversity, Avoid Emotive Language and Insular Tendencies

Hong Kong prides itself as a rational, forward looking, melting pot of diverse cultures, languages and people. We must avoid having our views distorted by anger and hatred and we must constantly remind ourselves to be rational and accept each other as people having an equal stake in our city. It is easier to only speak to or be close to those who are similar to you or who agree with you and your views. This close mindedness is the path to ugly xenophobia. We urge everyone to cease using any action and language that inflames, incites or vilifies people or groups of people. We should be united with all families and friends and welcome the diversity among us.

Appendix 1

Some Important Issues for Communication

(i) Verify Material Facts

Many views have been formed based on unverified facts, rumours, allegations or even fake news. Many people tend to only focus on facts which reinforce their own views, and discount or ignore facts which work against them. We should stop making serious allegations before facts are verified or the courts have handed down judgments.

We should communicate and agree upon a list of all material facts relating to the unrest and specify which of those facts have not yet been verified or agreed. Assistance should be sought from victims of violence or other serious illegal acts, the media, public transport operators, property operators and the Government to provide material facts.

(ii) Media and Fake News

News can be untrue, inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or even fake. Media can be politically biased. Unprofessional or biased media operators are extremely poisonous to our society. We should discuss whether, and if so what, reforms to the regime regulating the media industry are required, for example, the following:

– Licensing and ongoing monitoring of media operators
– Licensing and ongoing monitoring of reporters
– Operation of RTHK
– Guidelines on impartial and accurate reporting
– Fake news law

(iii) Education Sector

An alarming number of students and people below 18 years old have been arrested. Bullying and segregation are really happening in some schools. Politically-biased teachers who exhibit intolerance to perspectives different from theirs could improperly influence students and in turn incite fear, anger and hatred. Certain teaching materials may be politically-biased. Students may also not have a proper understanding of the histories of China and Hong Kong and basic legal concepts. We should discuss how the education system and related laws and regulations should be reformed, for example, the following:

– Licensing and ongoing monitoring of schools
– Licensing and ongoing monitoring of teachers
– Licensing of teaching materials
– General education syllabus
– Learning the histories of China and Hong Kong
– Learning basic legal concepts
– Guidelines on impartiality and avoidance of bias or incomplete information

(iv) Prosecution and Court Processes

– Granting of bail
– Political bias in prosecution and court processes
– Appointment, retirement and removal of judges
– Jury system
– Legal aid system
– Guidelines on deterrent effect of sentencing

(v) Police

– Handling of complaints, investigations on alleged breaches of laws and regulations, CAPO and IPCC
– Guidelines on use of force
– Guidelines on use of tear gas
– Guidelines on display of identification information
– Laws against insulting police officers

(vi) Independent review

We should be educated on how the IPCC and an independent review committee work and how certain other riots, e.g., the 2011 UK riots and the 1967 HK riots were reviewed. We should discuss the independent review in detail, including its scope, committee’s terms of reference, membership, timing for producing report and other material aspects.

(vii) Basic Law related issues

– Dual universal suffrage regarding election of Chief Executive and Legislative Council members
– Implementing legislation for Article 23

(viii) Funding for Re-building Hong Kong

There have been concerns as to whether it is fair to use taxpayers’ monies to re-build Hong Kong following the destruction by violent protesters. We should discuss the source of funding as well as plans on how to re-build Hong Kong.

(ix) Housing, Job Opportunities, Healthcare and other issues

Appendix 2

Some Parameters for Platforms for Communication

(i) Face-to-face discussions, if possible, at Government or other premises
(ii) Measures to reduce risk of being bullied and doxxing
(iii) A sizeable team of Government representatives
(iv) General invitation to public for expression of interests to participate
(v) If required, limit the number of participants by random sampling scrutinized by accountants or other suitable professionals
(vi) Each discussion can be in small group, with facilitator(s) (lawyers or other professionals with no political affiliations) and Government representatives
(vii) For discussions relating to a sector or group, e.g., media, education or police, representatives of that sector or group should be included
(viii) Each participant should be given a fair opportunity to talk and listen
(ix) Small group discussions are not one-off, but should continue as a series of discussions until the issues have been adequately discussed
(x) Discussions may be made public but names and other personal data of individuals will not be disclosed

有關起底

公署已依法將1,402宗涉嫌違反《私隱條例》第64條的個案,交予警方作進一步刑事調查及考慮提出檢控。

警方已就四宗涉嫌違反《私隱條例》第64條的個案採取拘捕行動,共拘捕五人,其中一宗個案已被警方作出起訴,該名男子被控其中一項「串謀披露未經資料使用者同意而取得個人資料」罪。

直至12月20日中午12時為止,公署共140次去信涉事的15個網上平台,要求移除共2,497條違法的連結,以及要求平台向其網民刊登警告字句,說明「起底」或網上欺凌行為會觸犯《私隱條例》第64條刑事罪行。當中有1,677條連結(即67%)已被移除。

日期: 2019年12月23日

私隱專員就「起底」及網絡欺凌行為的最新報告:

#重申「起底」者和協助的平台需負刑事和社會責任本港自今年六月起出現嚴重的「#起底」行為,個人資料更被「武器化」。香港個人資料私隱專員(私隱專員)黃繼兒就「起底」行為的最新情況及香港個人資料私隱專員公署(公署)的跟進工作提供以下最新資料。

「起底」以個人資料作為武器私隱專員黃繼兒重申:

「《私隱條例》第64(2)條規定,任何人士在未經控制或管有資料者同意下(例如公共領域或平台),披露某資料當事人的任何個人資料,尤其是那些無辜的人士(包括被『起底』者的配偶和子女),而該項披露導致該資料當事人蒙受心理傷害,這種傷害大多來自恐嚇,不論其意圖如何,該人即屬犯罪,一經定罪,最高刑罰是罰款港幣一百萬元及監禁五年。」

私隱專員亦表示,網上社交平台和討論區有法律和社會責任不協助或促進有關「起底」的違法行為。

今年10月,來自全球超過120個資料保障執法機關的代表在「環球私隱議會」(Global Privacy Assembly)(前身為「國際資料保障及私隱專員會議」),就社交媒體及網上的極端暴力內容,促請社交媒體提供服務者保障其提供的服務免受濫用,並防止網上散佈極端暴力內容,正正彰顯諸如網上「起底」達致恐嚇或煽動行為亦不為國際社會所接受。

公署發現最近被「起底」目標多為針對新近發生的矚目事件中的當事人,他們的個人及其家屬的資料會即時在網上平台被廣泛流傳。

整體情況公署於6月14日接獲首宗這類「起底」及網絡欺凌的相關個案。截至2019年12月20日中午12時,公署共接獲及主動發現4,359宗相關個案,所涉網上社交平台及討論區共有16個,所涉的連結共有2,916條。

當中被「起底」人士,遍及意見不同取向的人士和各行各業的從業員,其中警務人員及其家屬仍是單一組別計受影響人數最多的。在公署接獲及發現的4,359宗個案當中,涉及警務人員及其家屬共1,577宗(佔整體個案約36%)。對政府官員及公職人員進行「起底」的共180宗(佔整體個案約4%)。除了公職人員外,亦有曾表態支持政府或警方的公眾人士被「起底」(佔整體個案約30%)。

另一方面,有市民在網上發表反對政府或警察的言論後被「起底」(佔整體個案約10%)。亦有市民不滿示威者的行為,在網上披露他們的個人資料,更有網站鼓勵市民提供示威者的身份,將他們繩之於法(佔整體個案約20%)。

公署的跟進工作

#公署已依法將1,402宗涉嫌違反《私隱條例》第64條的個案,交予警方作進一步刑事調查及考慮提出檢控。

警方已就四宗涉嫌違反《私隱條例》第64條的個案採取拘捕行動,共拘捕五人,其中一宗個案已被警方作出起訴,該名男子被控其中一項「串謀披露未經資料使用者同意而取得個人資料」罪。

直至12月20日中午12時為止,公署共140次去信涉事的15個網上平台,要求移除共2,497條違法的連結,以及要求平台向其網民刊登警告字句,說明「起底」或網上欺凌行為會觸犯《私隱條例》第64條刑事罪行。當中有1,677條連結(即67%)已被移除。

公署已去信提醒有關平台或網站營運商,高等法院已發出臨時禁制令(HCA 1957/2019),禁制任何人非法地及故意地公開警員及其家人的個人資料,以恐嚇及騷擾警員及其家人。該禁制令並禁止任何人協助、造成、慫使、促致、唆使、煽動、協助、教唆或授權他人從事上述行為。另一臨時禁制令(HCA 2007/2019),則禁制任何人非法地及故意地在基於互聯網的媒介上促進、鼓勵或煽動使用或威脅使用暴力的材料或信息,以造成香港境内任何人身傷害或財產損害。該禁制令禁止任何人故意協助、造成、慫使、促致、唆使、煽動、協助、教唆或授權他人從事上述行為。公署向有關平台或網站營運商指出,他們必須履行其法律和道德上的公司責任,即不助長或教唆違背公共利益、非法和不道德行為,避免讓其平台濫用為侵犯個人資料私隱的工具。 如平台或網站營運商故意發布或不刪除上述禁止的帖文,可能被視作為違反禁制令,而觸犯藐視法庭罪。

公署在法庭發出禁制令後,接獲及發現可能涉嫌違反法庭禁制令的個案,公署已陸續將個案轉介律政司跟進。截至12月20日中午12時為止,總共轉介了40宗個案。

公署會繼續嚴正執法以打擊「起底」活動,其中多個平台在境外運作,私隱專員已去信當地的保障個人資料私隱機構,尋求國際協作打擊該平台上的「起底」行為。

Date: 23 December 2019

Privacy Commissioner Provides Updates on Doxxing and Cyberbullying: Reiterating Criminal and Social Liability of Doxxers and Assisting Platforms

Since June this year, serious doxxing acts have taken place and personal data has been “weaponised”. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong (Privacy Commissioner), Mr Stephen Kai-yi WONG provides the following updates on the latest situation of doxxing and the follow-up actions carried out by the office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD).

Doxxing by Weaponising Personal Data

The Privacy Commissioner reiterated that “section 64(2) of PDPO provides that a person commits an offence if the person discloses, without the consent of a data user who controls or is in possession of any personal data of a data subject (such as public domain or platforms), especially the person who is innocent (including the spouse and children of a doxxing victim), and the disclosure causes psychological harm to the data subject, most of which came from intimidation. Upon conviction, the maximum penalty is a fine of HK$1,000,000 and an imprisonment for 5 years”

The Privacy Commissioner also stated that online social platforms and discussion forums have legal and social responsibilities of not assisting or promoting any illegal acts of doxxing.

In October this year, representatives from more than 120 data protection authorities around the globe attended the Global Privacy Assembly (formerly known as International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners). In relation to social media and online violent extremist content, the Assembly urged social media service providers to offer service protection to protect their services from being misused and prevent the dissemination of those content online. This highlights that acts of intimidation or incitement such as doxxing on the Internet are not acceptable to the international community.

The PCPD found that doxxing targets are individuals in the recent eye-catching incidents. Personal data of the individuals and their family members would be widely circulated at online platforms immediately.Overall SituationThe PCPD received the first doxxing and cyberbullying case on 14 June. As at noon 20 December 2019, the PCPD received and discovered 4,359 related cases. Totally 16 online social platforms and discussion forums, and 2,916 web links were involved.The victims of doxxing are from all sorts of backgrounds and all walks of life with various views, among which police officers and their family members are the single largest sector of people falling victim to doxxing. Of the 4,359 complaints and cases discovered in our patrol, 1,577 cases (36% of the total cases) involved police officers and their family members. There were 180 cases of doxxing on government officials and public servants (accounting for about 4% of the total cases). In addition to public servants, there are also members of the public (accounting for about 30% of the total cases) who have stated their support for the government or the Police and were doxxed.

On the other hand, some citizens were doxxed after making online comments against the government or the Police (accounting for about 10% of the total cases). Some others were dissatisfied with the behaviour of protestors and disclosed their personal data online. Also, there are websites that encourage citizens to provide the identity of protestors for bringing them to justice (accounting for about 20% of the total cases).

PCPD’s Follow-up Actions

The PCPD has referred 1,402 cases of this nature to the Police for criminal investigation and for consideration for prosecution.A total of five people have been arrested in four cases by the Police on suspicion of contravening section 64 of PDPO, including an earlier case where prosecution was made by the Police. In that prosecution case, a man was charged with “conspiracy to disclosing personal data obtained without consent from data users”.

As at noon 20 December, the PCPD has written to the related 15 platforms 140 times, urging them to remove a total of 2,497 web links and to post warnings that netizens who engage in doxxing and cyberbullying may commit a serious offence under section 64 of PDPO. Among those web links, 1,677 web links (67%) have already been removed.

The PCPD has sent a letter to remind relevant platforms or website operators that the High Court has granted an interim injunction order (HCA 1957/2019) to, inter alia, restrain persons from unlawfully and wilfully disclosing personal data of Police Officers and/or their family members, intended or likely to intimidate or harass Police Officers and/or their family members. The order also restrains persons in assisting, causing, counselling, procuring, instigating, inciting, aiding, abetting or authorising others to commit any of the aforesaid acts. Another interim injunction order (HCA 2007/2019) also restrains persons from willfully disseminating any material or information on any internet-based platform or medium for the purpose of promoting, encouraging or inciting the use or threat of violence, intended or likely to cause bodily injury to any person or damage to any property unlawfully within Hong Kong. The order also restrains persons from assisting, causing, counselling, procuring, instigating, inciting, aiding or abetting others to commit any the aforesaid acts. The PCPD reminded relevant platforms or website operators that they are obligated to carry out legal and ethical corporate responsibility. They should not encourage illegal and unethical behaviour against public interest to avoid platforms being abused as a tool for infringing the privacy of personal data. If the platform or website operators deliberately publish or do not delete the aforesaid prohibited posts, it may be regarded as violation of the injunction and contempt of court.

After the interim injunction order came into effect, the PCPD received and found cases involving suspected violations of interim injunction order, and referred relevant cases to the Department of Justice for follow-up. As at noon 20 December 2019, 40 cases were referred.We will continue to spare no efforts in enforcing the law to curtail these harmful doxxing acts. Since some involved platforms are based overseas, the Privacy Commissioner has written to the relevant local data protection authorities seeking for international cooperation to combat the #doxxing acts.

在公眾地方進行非慈善的籌款活動是否犯法?

在公眾地方進行 #非慈善的籌款活動 是否 #犯法

根據香港法例第228章 《#簡易程序治罪條例》第4條(17)(ii)款,任何人無合法權限或解釋而在公眾地方為 #非慈善用途的目的組織#參與 或 #提供設備 以進行任何籌款活動,或 #售賣徽章#紀念品或類似物件

的活動,或為 #獲取捐款而交換徽章#紀念品或類似物件的活動可處罰款$500或 #監禁3個月,但已獲 #民政事務局局長 發出 #許可證者除外

Under Section 4(17)(ii) of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, organizes, provides equipment for, or participates in any collection of money or sale or exchange for donations of badges, tokens or similar articles in a public place for non-charitable purposes shall be liable to a fine of $500 or to imprisonment for three months, except under or in accordance with a permit issued by the Secretary for Home Affairs.

🎄❄️☃️給大家最温暖的節日祝福!🎄❄️☃️

🎄❄️☃️Warmest Seasonal Greetings to all of you here ! 🎄❄️☃️

We’ve been through a most tumultuous and difficult six months. However, through it all, one memorable good that came shining through is this chance for us to meet, chat and brainstorm digitally together.

We are honoured to know you and grateful for your ideas, comments and suggestions in our effort to bring peace, stability and rationality to our beloved Hong Kong.

Wishing you Happy Holidays, a Very Merry Christmas and may the New Year bring a bright new dawn for us all!LawyersHK

🎄❄️☃️給大家最温暖的節日祝福!🎄❄️☃️

我們經歷了六個月既動盪又艱難的日子。但是,在這過程中,我們很慶幸有緣透過這平台認識大家,並與大家交流和一起集思廣益。

我們很高興和感激大家給予我們的意見,希望香港能盡快回復和平、穩定和理性。

衷心祝福大家有一個愉快的假期,聖誕快樂並且讓我們一起迎接新的一年的美好和幸福!LawyersHK

無牌管有槍械或彈藥最高刑罰是什麼?

無牌管有槍械彈藥 最高刑罰是什麼?

根據香港法例第238章 《#火器及彈藥條例》第13條,任何人除非持有 #槍械或彈藥的管有權牌照 或 #經營人牌照,否則不得管有該等槍械或彈藥。任何人違反這條款即屬犯罪,一經定罪,可處 #罰款HK$100,000及 #監禁14年

Under Section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (Cap. 238), no person shall have in his possession any arms or ammunition unless he holds a licence for possession of such arms or ammunition or a dealer’s licence therefor. A person who contravenes this Section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of HK$100,000 and to imprisonment for 14 years.

妨礙拘捕、搶犯和窩藏罪犯犯咗咩法?

妨礙拘捕搶犯 和 窩藏罪犯 犯咗咩法?

根據香港法例第221章 《#刑事訴訟程序條例》第90條,如某人犯可逮捕的罪行,而任何其他人知悉或相信該人就該罪行或另一可逮捕罪行有罪,並在無合法權力依據或合理辯解的情況下,作出任何作為而意圖妨礙拘捕或檢控該人,即屬有罪,一經定罪,可處監禁10年。

Under Section 90 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (#Cap. 221), if a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for 10 years.