[ad_1]
During the Hong Kong protests in 2019, doxing (malicious online sharing of personal information) was very intense.
Protesters used Facebook and Telegram to spread the details of police officers accused of violence and government supporters published private information from opposition politicians, activists and journalists.
“This weaponry is arguably the worst form of data [use] in action we’ve never seen ” dit Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data. According to the department’s annual report, from mid-June 2019 to March 2020, approximately 5,000 doxing incidents were reported or discovered to the commissioner. Some people who had shared police personal data were jailed. By 2020 as a whole, the number of doxing cases had dropped to about 1,000, as protests disappeared during the pandemic.
Hong Kong is taking additional steps to make changes to data privacy laws. But in doing so, he has expressed concern that the new measures will give the territorial administration broad powers to repress freedom of expression, reduce access to public information and restrict the functioning of law enforcement groups. Social Networks.
Companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter have warned of the impact of policy changes that would give the privacy commissioner broad powers to initiate criminal investigations and proceedings against local offices of social media companies for failing to remove material from their platforms. . In fact, it could also make technology group employees responsible for user content. And Hong Kong has said it could block access to websites that contain doxing content.
Technology groups say they can be forced stop providing services to the territory as a result of the changes. “The only way to avoid these sanctions. . . it would be to refrain from investing and offering its services in Hong Kong, ”says Asia Asia Coalition, which represents the technology groups.
The proposals would mean that sharing personal information online that could cause the issue of “psychological harm” would result in harsh sentences, including up to five years in prison. The AIC says this is too broad and discretionary a term to use as appropriate legal evidence.
In other measures, business directors will be allowed to retain some of their personal information, such as full identification numbers, in the Hong Kong Business Register.
This has led to concerns that directors could use versions of their name in different languages to hide their identity, making fraud more likely. Following a clamor from corporate governance groups, investors, lawyers and accountants (who use the registry to conduct investigations and due diligence), some people, such as business liquidators, may request full access to the information.
There are reasons for Hong Kong to act on the misuse of publicly available personal information. Hong Kong’s data privacy laws have lagged behind international standards, especially in the case of large corporate data breaches. And the harm done to people who are victims of doxing should not be minimized.
However, critics say Hong Kong’s political response may severely restrict the free flow of information for legitimate purposes. This would further undermine Hong Kong’s reputation as an international business hub.
“It’s an incredibly Chinese mainland way of operating, designed to invest a lot of discretion in the authorities as to how the rules are enforced,” says a senior adviser to technology companies.
In mainland China, the repression in the app Didi, last week, showed how the mission to protect data privacy can be deployed with great impact, in this case clearing billions of dollars of the company’s value.
Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam has dismissed concerns about the implementation of the new policies, saying the territory only wants to target “illegal doxing”. However, its tranquility may not have brought much comfort to international business. Lam compared data privacy measures for the implementation of the national security law last year, which has radically altered Hong Kong’s legal landscape.
And for international companies operating in Hong Kong, the new measures address widespread questions: how will territorial authorities enforce the laws? And will there be any action against privacy with rules of fact?
“In the past there was faith,” said the senior advisor to technology companies, “but that certainty has eroded.”
[ad_2]
Source link
