No abstract

No abstract

Privacy is an important value which is internationally recognised as worthy of protection. However, it has been under constant challenge for a number of reasons including changes in technology which facilitate informational and other forms of surveillance and privacy-invasive media practices. Because of its multi-faceted nature, privacy is typically regulated by a variety of different means. Data protection laws seek to ensure the fair handling of personal information. Criminal sanctions are used to outlaw more serious invasions of privacy, including certain breaches of communications privacy and uses of surveillance devices. Assorted civil actions are relied on to protect broader interests in privacy. However, the piecemeal nature of privacy protection is often found to be inadequate and victims frequently lack appropriate remedies. Therefore, many common law countries either provide for or are actively considering the introduction of civil remedies to specifically address general privacy issues. There has also been active consideration of measures to regulate media organisations, especially in the light of the Murdoch scandal in the United Kingdom. The inadequacies in the law have prompted calls for law reform in Hong Kong, and recommendations have been made in the report on Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy (2004). It examined the need of individuals to be able to seek civil remedies for unwarranted invasion of privacy. In it the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (HKLRC) proposed the introduction of specific statutory torts of privacy to cover acts and conduct frustrating the reasonable expectation of an individual’s privacy. It proposed that a person, who invaded another’s privacy by intruding upon their solitude or seclusion, or by intruding into their private affairs or concerns, should be liable in tort. It also recommended another tort for invasion of privacy arising out of public disclosure of private facts. This article focuses on the issue of civil liability and analyses the inadequacies of existing laws and regulatory regimes and attempts to come up with a model that is most suitable for Hong Kong. It takes the HKLRC’s recommendations as its starting point but refines and modifies them, drawing on the insights that have since become available from the work of other law reform bodies and further developments in overseas case law.

No abstract

The focus of privacy laws in Hong Kong has always been on the use and dissemination of personal or confidential information, but a person’s privacy can also be intruded by unwanted watching or listening irrespective of whether information is collected or used. Despite an attempt to introduce two privacy torts by the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong in 2004, there is no timetable as to when these two statutory torts be introduced. Recognition has been afforded for intrusions upon seclusion or solitude in a number of jurisdictions including New Zealand and the Canadian province of Ontario. In England, an intrusion tort has not been separately recognized, but the decision in Gulati v MGN confirmed that damages may still be awarded for an action for misuse of private information in instances where there is no disclosure or publication of the wrongfully acquired information. This article looks at the possibility of developing a common law action of privacy in Hong Kong which affords protection regardless of whether private information is acquired or published by drawing insights to the developments in New Zealand and England.