📖 ZKIZ Archives

Webb公開身份證編號 富豪私隱大曝光

1 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:08:26

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165933
HKIDs and Government secrecy
12th February 2013

There's been a lot of attention recently on the proposed implementation of changes to the Companies Ordinance to allow the Companies Registry (CR) to withhold full HKID or passport numbers and "usual residential" addresses from public inspection at the registry.

Webb-site first wrote about the HKID issue back in 2010, when the Financial Services and Treasury Bureau had issued conclusions from its consultation on a draft Bill. The ordinance was amended last summer before the end of the 2007-12 session. The full ordinance can be found here. Now we have a new LegCo and the Government needs subsidiary legislation to map out the details, without which, this Division of the ordinance (Division 7 of Part 2, Sections 47-60) will presumably not be brought into effect. So on 2-Nov-2012 the Government published a consultation on the Companies (Residential Addresses and Identification Numbers) Regulation (CRAINR), amongst other things. The consultation closed on 14-Dec-2012, and conclusions have not yet been published.

So we still have a chance to stop it. Media articles in the last few months on the assets of families of state leaders (including Xi Jinping, Wen Jiabao and the 8 immortals) were facilitated by access to the CR, and that has brought this issue to global attention. Closer to home, sub-divided apartments held by a company owned by a HK official's wife have also been in the news. But there are much broader issues at stake, including the entire approach of the HK Government to access to information.

HKIDs should be seen, not hidden

In our 2010 article, we opposed the proposal to blank out the last 3 digits of ID numbers, because it makes it impossible to know for sure who you are dealing with. 1,000 people could have the same partial HKID, and in some cases, they will have the same name. Family names in HK, like Scottish clans, don't have a lot of variety, particularly when Romanised (there is a many-to-one relationship between Chinese characters and English words). Take out the Chans, Cheungs, Leungs and Wongs and you would be missing more than one third (24/70) of the Legislative Council. In mainland PRC, the top 3 family names cover 21% of the population, and many of them have only two characters in their name, such as "Li Wei", of whom we currently have 16 in Webb-site Who's Who (WWW), the leading public database on HK people.

Like any other culture, some given names are also quite popular. For example, we currently have 19 "Chan Chi Keung"s in WWW, of which 9 have no English given name, so they appear identical. The only way we can distinguish between them is using an identifier from another source, such as the SFC, where each licensee has a separate code. That doesn't help much though, because the same person could have been licensed with the HKMA, MPFA or insurance self-regulators, but he would have a different license number at each regulator. He might also have a disciplinary history as a licensed estate agent, a solicitor, or a certified public accountant. If all regulators published HKID numbers, then we would know whether we are looking at the same person. Without HKIDs, we are often unable to connect the dots and know for sure whether it is the same person or a different person with the same name.

As the Law Society put it in their submission in 2010 (page 4):

"Identification numbers should be recorded and disclosed in full as it is a unique piece of information for identifying a person; the name of a person is not. Persons with identical names are not uncommon. An identification number is not a reliable tool for authenticating the identity of a person in electronic or telephone transactions. Use of identification number for authentication purpose is itself a misuse and should be discouraged."

The Government, in its conclusions paper, said "the remaining digits (together with the name) should be sufficient to identify the individual persons". That directly contradicts the Government's own consultation paper of 17-Dec-2009, which said (p54):

"The option of masking 3 or 4 digits of an identification number would not serve the purpose of identifying a person as there are cases of persons with the same name having similar identity card numbers".

By treating HKIDs as secrets, the Government is encouraging the misuse of the HKID as an authenticator (particularly by phone) rather than an identifier, and thereby incentivising identity fraud. The Government should be doing the opposite, and requiring the service providers it regulates, such as telecoms and pay-TV providers, to find other ways to authenticate their customers.

The HKID index

The easiest way to stop abuse of HKIDs as authenticators would be to give clear notice that in say, two years' time, the full register of all HKIDs and the corresponding names will be published, so that nobody will rely on them as authenticators. Two years ought to be enough time for all commercial users to modify their systems to use more reliable authentication when dealing with customers by phone.

The Government should embark on a publicity campaign to remind people that HKIDs are not secrets and should not be used as authenticators. Through the Communications Authority, the HKMA and the SFC, Government can also require regulated service providers not to use ID numbers to authenticate people by phone or online. If they need to authenticate a customer by phone, they should ask the customer something that only she and the service provider would know, such as a pre-arranged password, or the balance on the last bill.

The Government should amend the Privacy Ordinance to make clear (if it isn't already) that an ID number is not a piece of personal data, it is an identifier. It does not in itself contain material personal information about a person, it merely identifies them.

The Government should also publish full HKID numbers alongside the name of any person it appoints to a statutory or advisory body. These posts are like directorships of companies, and the public has a right to know exactly who has been appointed, rather than just a common name (see this notice, for example - who is Wong Wai Man, or Chan Chi Hung?). The HKIDs can then be used at the CR, Land Registry and other public sources to know more about the person and check on any conflicts of interest. Regulators, likewise, should use HKID numbers in their online directories of licensees and in disciplinary matters. That includes the HKICPA, HKMA, SFC, MPFA, Medical Council, Estate Agents Authority and any other licensor you can think of.

We published our founder's ID number, P135143(9) back in 2010, to prove that this is not in any way a secret. Today, we are launching an index of HKIDs which are (or have been) available on the web, not behind any pay-wall, and not as a result of any security breach. There are over 1,100 people in that index, mostly still alive, including some well-known billionaires whose HKID numbers can readily be found online. Interestingly, the most popular prefix is "D", and the rarest is "Y". Judging from the names, it seems that persons born outside HK are more likely to have a P or an R (including some mainland arrivals), and the XA, XD, XE and XG series are almost exclusively non-Chinese but have been here for decades - possibly all before the handover, so perhaps those series are no longer issued.

We have compiled this index without (yet) paying to obtain data in the CR - but we reserve the right to do so. Filings with the CR are public filings, and the data are provided for the purposes of making them available for public inspection and identifying who the directors of companies are. You don't have to be a company director if you don't want to, but if you are, then the public has a right to know exactly who you are. You direct your company with its privilege of limited liability. The only reason that the CR data are not used more widely is the pay-wall that stands in the way.

Tear down that wall

The CR has a monopoly on filings from companies registered in HK. The Land Registry has a monopoly on the registration of real estate transactions. Each operates behind a pay wall, a pay-per-view document scheme which harks back to the days when providing copies of documents from the registries actually cost money, and involved counter service staff, acetate microfiches and reading rooms to enlarge, view and print said microfiches. In the 21st century though, the registries receive a lot of documents electronically, and those which are on paper are promptly scanned and digitised for internal records. The incremental cost of making all those files available for public search is nearly zero - just a matter of local bandwidth and software maintenance.

So there is no "user pays" excuse here. The greater public interest would be served by demolishing the pay-wall and opening the registries, and all their documents, to public access. In the words of Ronald Reagan in Berlin, "tear down this wall". A good example of this open access is the New Zealand Companies Registry, where all documents are online. They do have the complication that NZ has no national ID number scheme, so instead they distinguish between "John Smith"s by using their residential addresses. Another option would be to use dates of birth, to almost eliminate duplicates.

The CR makes a monopolistic profit. Accounts for the year to 31-Mar-2012 show that the CR had turnover of HK$483.2m and pre-tax profit of $257.6m, or 53% of turnover. Only $61.1m of turnover came from search and copying fees, so it would still have made a huge profit even if it charged nothing for searches. Incorporation fees, annual filing fees, and registration of charges (mortgages) amounted to $384.0m of turnover. So in fact the CR should cut those fees as well.

Meanwhile at the Land Registry, accounts for the year to 31-Mar-2012 show turnover of $426.8m, sharply reduced because of Special Stamp Duty which reduced transactions and filings, but still making a profit before tax of $116.5m, which was more than the search fees of $82.2m. In the previous year, turnover was $573.4m, with profit before tax of $242.2m and search fees of $100.9m. So in both years, the Land Registry would have made a profit without charging search fees.

Both registries are essential Government services and are natural monopolies. They should not be run for-profit but to cover their costs, including amortisation of infrastructure. The Basic Law calls for the Government to balance its budget, not rack up surpluses by abusing natural monopolies.

Regardless of that, the public interest calls for opening the registries and all their documents to free online search. For example, the controversy over the defaulted sales of luxury flats at 39 Conduit Road would have been avoided if it had been obvious, from looking at the online sale and purchase agreements, that each sale was to a shell company with only a 5% deposit. In effect, those shells were call options - if the value of the flats went down more than 5%, then the owner of the shell would walk away from the deal, and if not, then they would complete the purchase. The buyers and the developer knew that, but the public did not. Journalists had to pay to see each and every transaction agreement before they could build the picture.

Mistaken identity

Similarly, researching the assets and potential conflicts of interest by government officials, both from the mainland and HK, involves paying to see records of each company and property they are involved with - if you can identify them in the first place. In a first-hand example of why the use of HKIDs would improve transparency and reduce mistaken identity, we can tell you that on 18-Apr-2007, Ming Pao reported that Webb-site founder David Webb had sold a house in Mount Kellett Road for HK$75m, upon which he had made a profit of $12m. Nice story - but it wasn't us. The newspaper didn't bother to call us - they assumed that the property agents feeding them the story had got the correct David Webb. To our knowledge, there are at least three "David Webb"s in Hong Kong. Incidentally, the same house was resold in 2012 for HK$155m. If only we had held on to the house we didn't own to start with!

Now, if this story had been about the secret assets of a Chinese politburo member or a HK Chief Executive, he would probably have sued the newspaper for defamation. The risk of such mistaken identity is enough to intimidate the media into not reporting - there is a rule of thumb: "if in doubt, leave it out".

A media exemption would mean media controls

On 29-Jan-2013, after a meeting with Government, the HK News Executives Association said that the Government had suggested an exemption in the law for journalists. The fact that the Government even suggested such an exemption shows how little they have thought about the Basic Law issues at stake here. Yet they have clearly been planning it in some detail - each "media organisation" would be given its own password to access the HKIDs and residential addresses, but only if it was used for the purpose of news reporting. It is a blatant attempt to "buy off" opposition from the media, and we are glad that the Hong Kong Journalists Association has rejected this move outright.

A media exemption is completely unacceptable. Unlike in mainland China, where the Government controls all the media and censors free speech, Hong Kong has "freedom of speech, of the press and of publication" guaranteed by Article 28 of the Basic Law. There is no licensing scheme which says who is a journalist and who is not, and what is a media organisation and what is not, nor should there be (although there is still the antiquated Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance). The grant of any privileged access would imply a licensing or recognition scheme which could become a tool to suppress the media. The ability to withdraw privileged access to the registries by revoking recognition of a journalist or organisation would mean that the Government had the ability to impede freedom of the media. Bloggers, freelance investigative journalists, and operators of independent sites like Webb-site, would have a particularly tough time. The Government could simply refuse to recognise someone as a "journalist" or "media". Members of the public who wanted to conduct their own research would be locked out.

The situation is bad enough already, in that the Government already releases some information via a Government News & Media Information System (GNMIS) that is not open to the general public, only to organisations lucky enough to receive a password. You will notice a complete absence of any "register here" button on the site that would allow you to sign up. GNMIS is a little known fact - you don't see regular media ever mentioning it, perhaps because they fear losing access. We believe the system is used, amongst other things, to give notice of media conferences at which new policies will be announced.

People working in private banks or IPO sponsors, seeking to do due diligence on their potential clients, would also have difficulty, as would businesses seeking to know more about their customers or suppliers. The result would be more money-laundering, fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest than is presently the case. So what next - will the Government propose exemption for all these categories? Who does that leave?

Addresses

We have sympathy with the proposal to allow display of a correspondence address rather than a "usual residential address". As long as a person has a designated correspondence address at which they can be sued (whether or not they are physically at that address) then we see no reason why that address should also be his home. It could even be a P.O. Box, because that is little different from the "virtual office" addresses that thousands of private companies use. The law can be clarified that the designated address is valid for any legal proceedings, and if the person then does not check his mail and has a judgment awarded against him in his absence, that is his choice.

Although there is very little, if any, evidence that the disclosure of residential addresses has been abused, it can be a personal security issue. People conducting investigative journalism might not like the idea that the people they criticise can find out where they and their children sleep at night. If you are a director of a news organisation or association, or a freelancer who directs your own company, then your residential address should be in the CR. That risk in turn might work against the public interest in a free and incisive media. If you are a director of a private bank who has just declined to open an account for a suspected triad, then your address is in the CR too.

However, we note that residential addresses are also available in other public documents. For example, the (mostly residential) addresses of candidates for election to the Election Committee, District Councils and the Legislative Council are published in the Gazette. There you will find the addresses of the CPPCC nominees to the Election Committee in 2011, including Leung Chun Ying, and here are the addresses of property tycoons. The full list of nominations is here.

What the Government should do
1.Abandon the proposal to restrict access to IDs in the CR.
2.Amend the draft subsidiary legislation to focus only on correspondence addresses, and simultaneously table amendments to repeal the provisions of the new Companies Ordinance relating to IDs.
3.Adopt a Government-wide policy of promoting the use of HKIDs to uniquely identify a person, including in appointments to Government boards and committees.
4.Require the HKMA, SFC, Estate Agents Authority, Medical Council, Dental Council and other regulators to include HKID numbers in public registers of licensees, and require that regulated service providers cannot use HKIDs to authenticate individuals by telephone.
5.Amend the privacy ordinance to clarify that identifiers, including HKIDs and passport numbers, are not personal data.
6.Tear down the pay-walls and open the Companies Registry and Land Registry to free online access for all data and documents.

If the Government does all of the above, then it will promote HK as a fairer, more transparent and open economy, and at the same time reduce fraud, corruption and money-laundering.

© Webb-site.com, 2013

---

2 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:08:39

http://webb-site.com/dbpub/HKIDindex.asp
ID 號碼

---

3 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:09:02

http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20130215/00176_040.html
「股壇長毛」揭富豪個人資料

再有人公開挑戰公司法的查冊限制，有「股壇長毛」之稱的獨立股評人David Webb日前就在其網站中發表文章，抨擊政府修例限制公眾查閱公司註冊紀錄的董事個人資料，並在網站公開一千一百五十名市民身份證號碼以示抗爭，當中包括一眾富豪，如恒基地產主席「四叔」李兆基、新鴻基地產聯席主席郭炳江、東亞銀行主席李國寶及電訊盈科主席李澤楷等。

包括李兆基李國寶李澤楷
David Webb指有關資料均從網上公開途徑中免費取得，包括由美國證券交易委員會網站、港府憲報等。David Webb在其網站解釋，由於擁有相同中國姓名的人數眾多，而且重複，難以單從姓名來核實公司董事身份，故身份證號碼可作為核實身份的憑據，他又不認同公開身份證號碼代表披露該人士更多具敏感性資料的私隱，而這類核實過程對商業機構及監管機構尤其重要。

David Webb促棄限查冊
他同時又建議港府放棄限制市民查冊，尤其是不應限制查閱登記冊上的身份證號碼等資料；另又建議修改有關的附屬法例，不應只是使用通訊地址登記，還要有其他地址資料。

---

4 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:09:52

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165933

【惡法阻查冊】
【本報訊】政府修例限制公眾查閱公司董事身份證號碼等個人資料，有「股壇長毛」之稱的獨立股評人David Webb發動網上抗爭，近日在網站發佈「身份證號碼索引」（The HKID Index），公開包括李澤楷、郭炳江、李國寶等1,150名市民的身份證號碼。個人資料私隱專員公署擔心資料落入不法之徒手中。Webb反駁，資料全部從網上公開途徑免費取得。政府限制公眾查冊，反而助長行騙、貪污和洗黑錢。
記者：白琳　張嘉雯




該批網上資料冊的來源，主要來自美國證券交易委員會網站、港府憲報的清盤人資料等。長實副主席李澤鉅、電訊盈科主席李澤楷及新地聯席主席郭炳江等人都榜上有名，他們的英文全名及身份證號碼一目了然。





政府變相鼓勵犯罪

Webb上月底發起身份證號碼公開大行動，呼籲網民在Twitter貼出自己的身份證號碼，以抗議政府限制公司查冊。Webb指出，外國傳媒早前透過本港查冊，揭發中共領導人習近平及溫家寶家族的身家，現時港府修訂《公司條例》，限制公眾查冊已成國際新聞，「我們還有機會阻止」。
他今次的抗爭，反映身份證號碼極容易取得，只能用作「辨識」身份，根本不適宜讓銀行或電訊商等公司用來「驗證」客戶，「政府視身份證號碼為私隱，只會鼓勵業界繼續以此作驗證用途，變相鼓勵犯罪」。
Webb促請政府要求業界改用其他驗證方法，例如私人密碼，杜絕不法之徒濫用身份證號碼。他建議政府把全民身份證號碼變成公開資料，設兩年過渡期給業界轉換驗證系統，並修改私隱條例，把身份證號碼剔除私隱之列。政府公佈公職人員名單也應附上身份證號碼，以便公眾追查其公司及物業交易紀錄，確保沒利益衝突。此舉也令傳媒有效辨識目標人物身份，避免報道出錯。
個人資料私隱專員公署發言人表示，任何人或機構收集個人資料，須告知當事人收集資料目的，縱使某些身份證號碼可公開取得，但仍屬個人資料，「任意」讓公眾查閱，未必與當初收集資料原意相關。

非牟利用途無違法

署理個人資料私隱專員張如萌警告，身份證號碼現時常用作識別個人身份真偽，獨一無二和高度敏感，須加以保護。假若身份證號碼連同姓名落入不法之徒手中，「將大大增加犯罪風險」。警方前年處理104宗使用他人身份證的罪案。
民主黨立法會議員涂謹申表示，Webb並無違反私隱條例。八達通事件後，政府修訂私隱條例，規定直銷活動公司使用或轉移資料須獲當事人同意，今年4月生效。不過Webb的抗爭非作牟利用途，不受新例規管，加上其網站與傳媒類似，而使用資料作新聞用途已獲條例豁免。
本報向長實、恆基、新鴻基地產及電訊盈科，查詢上述遭公開身份證號碼的人士會否向私隱專員求助或要求David Webb刪除有關資料。但至截稿前只有李澤楷透過公關公司表示不予評論。

---

5 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:10:50

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165936

【本報訊】獨立股評人David Webb在個人網站公佈城中富豪的身份證號碼。為了證明身份證號碼不是私隱，他刻意不採用要付費的公司查冊系統，改為透過多種免費渠道，找出他們的身份證號碼與住址，包括美國證券交易委員會查冊系統（EDGAR System）、廉政公署的《被通緝人士名冊》、政府憲報和香港聯交所「披露易系統」。




政府網站需繳費查閱

David Webb披露逾千名人資料，大部份都是採用美國證券交易委員會的免費查冊系統。該系統相當完善，市民在公司搜尋一欄只需輸入美國上市公司名稱，便找到1994年至今的重要文件，例如董事變更。文件也會記載董事的香港身份證號碼和住址，記者嘗試搜尋東亞銀行（The Bank of East Asia），即成功找到董事的香港身份證和住址，效果等同要付費的公司註冊處查冊，但搜索並不適用於未有在美國上市的公司。
Webb也從本港多個免費渠道「搵料」，包括港交所「披露易系統」。公眾人士只要輸入上市公司名稱，即可獲得公司董事名單和公司資料報表，如新增董事；公司亦需提交新董事履歷表和在其他公司擔任董事職位資料，但不提供董事的身份證號碼和住址。
廉政公署執法欄目有《被通緝人士名冊》，公開被通緝人士的身份證號碼、護照號碼、職業、出生日期和相片，提供最詳細的資料，現時有31位通緝人士資料在冊。
政府一站通提供憲報搜索，市民可翻查2000年起政府公告，政府機構要遵照條例公開公司資料，例如公司註冊處按《放債人條例》，在憲報公開財務公司地址，但財務公司其他資料，仍需在公司註冊處放債人註冊小組繳付17元查閱。





公司法專題
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/apple/index/16635518

---

6 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:12:58

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165938






【特稿】
現時公眾查閱註冊公司資料，須向公司註冊處付費，該處上年度收益達4.3億元。David Webb指出，新西蘭政府早已網上公開註冊公司董事個人資料，免費讓公眾查閱。港府不但沒有順應國際潮流，反而進一步限制公眾查冊，港人反對修例之餘，也應推倒這道收費高牆（tear down that wall）。由於新西蘭沒全國統一的身份證號碼系統，公司董事註冊只能以住址及出生日期辨識，只要在當地政府公司註冊網頁輸入董事名字，所有同名人士的註冊紀錄均一目了然。




Webb反對政府提出遮蓋身份證號碼最尾三個數字或只容許傳媒等個別界別查冊，指建議「完全不能接受」。字母連首三個數字相同的組合涉及1,000人，不能用作辨識身份；給予個別傳媒機構特權查閱資料，亦對博客和獨立記者不公。
《蘋果》記者

---

7 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:13:39

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165939

【本報訊】新《公司條例》推手、公司註冊處前處長鍾悟思（Gordon Jones）公開向政府「開火」，暗指新例限制查冊，縱容公司董事有權無責，公司執笠可以全身而退，卻連公開部份個人資料予公眾監察都嚴限，影響香港作為國際金融中心的地位。他認為身份證號碼是董事獨一無二的識別碼，並非機密，應該公開。




2008年退休的鍾悟思，是公司法重寫的推手；退休後，當局就附屬條例向公眾諮詢，鍾兩度提交書面意見，反對限制查冊，理據是香港情況與英國不同，未曾有董事受嚴重滋擾；而在香港同名同姓非常普遍，限制取覽身份證號碼會剝削公眾唯一查證個人身份的途徑，並會讓不誠實的人逃避債權人；惟意見未獲採納。
他今日在報章撰文，重申上述理據，批評當局未有考慮公司董事應權責一致，他指出，有限公司董事毋須承擔一旦公司倒閉所衍生的責任，理應公開部份個人資料讓公眾監察作為代價，又指當局諮詢文件內容「非常惹人誤解（very misconceived）」。






「風險轉嫁畀巿民」

鍾在文章批評支持收緊查冊的商會並不中立，相反，認為應維持現有做法的團體，包括銀行公會及香港會計師公會等，均屬監督公司及處理企業詐騙的重要組織。
他進一步批評本港容許私人公司擔任董事，這類公司毋須提交經審核賬目，非常不透明和難以問責，即使新條例要求私人公司委任至少一名自然人任董事，但若這名董事毋須披露個人住址及完整身份證號碼，公司透明度只會下降。
財經事務及庫務局發言人未有正面回應私人公司提交審計賬目的安排，只表示新例參照英國《2006年公司法》，訂明其他私人公司均須有至少一名屬自然人的董事。
反對限制查冊的香港記者協會主席麥燕庭稱鍾是「良心官員」，希望當局聆聽前人意見，「你（董事）以有限責任，毋須上身咁去搵錢，而呢個搵錢嘅風險轉嫁咗畀巿民，一旦公司執笠，董事毋須上身，所以你係需要負番嗰個有限度嘅責任，就係要俾人哋access你啲資料；但新諮詢文件，完全冇提呢樣嘢」。





公司註冊處前處長鍾悟思文章重點

1.公司董事毋須承擔公司倒閉的所有財務責任，有權利亦應有義務公開部份個人資料，讓公眾監察

2.身份證號碼是董事獨一無二的識別碼，不屬機密

3.支持收緊查冊的商會不中立，相反，支持現有做法的團體，包括銀行公會、香港會計師公會、香港律師會等，均屬監督公司及處理企業詐騙的重要組織

4.政府諮詢文件非常令人誤解

5.英國有董事曾受愛護動物組織成員滋擾，但香港未曾出現類似情況

6.本港容許私人公司擔任董事，私人公司毋須提交經審核賬目，若私人公司委任的個人董事也毋須披露個人資料，公司的透明度將進一步下降

資料來源：鍾悟思文章





公司法專題
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/apple/index/16635518

---

8 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:13:48

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165941






【本報訊】公司註冊處前處長鍾悟思不單是重寫公司法的推手，更是網上查冊功臣，在公司註冊處擔任主管的14年間推動該處電腦化，在2005年2月推出電子搜尋服務，至2008年5月正式退休。

鍾悟思1973年畢業於牛津大學，隨即加入香港政府擔任行政主任；1993年5月起出任公司註冊處處長；於2000年初和2004年分別完成公司法改革常務委員會的公司條例檢討及企業管治檢討。
61歲的鍾悟思，離職前接受《香港證券》訪問，表明自己是重寫公司條例的骨幹成員之一，認為有關工作是非常重大的成就，是確保香港今後作為主要國際商務與金融中心的關鍵因素，但他擔心部份內容被淡化，「既得利益者當利益受損時會提出反對，尤其是涉及董事條文，他們在立法會中具有非常強大的游說力」，惟未有指明涉及那些條文。





公司法專題
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/apple/index/16635518

---

9 : Dict(36611)@2013-02-15 18:27:30

對我地這些蟻民查資料會有什麼影響?

很多人會用身份証做密碼, 可能是一個問題

---

10 : 自動波人(1313)@2013-02-15 19:39:43

9樓提及

---

對我地這些蟻民查資料會有什麼影響?

很多人會用身份証做密碼, 可能是一個問題

一禁唔俾查,連傳媒都查唔到

用身份証做密碼係自己問題.....

---

11 : VA(33206)@2013-02-15 20:07:48

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

---

12 : Dict(36611)@2013-02-15 21:15:03

11樓提及

---

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

我又覺得玩大D好, 多D人注意壓力才大, 多人討論先會有好結果

---

13 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-16 13:15:35

12樓提及

---

11樓提及

---

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

我又覺得玩大D好, 多D人注意壓力才大, 多人討論先會有好結果

就玩大佢，一人一信投訴私隱專員公署，Webb的ID 有無留影

---

14 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-16 13:15:41

刪幾多貼幾多

---

15 : passby(15493)@2013-02-17 00:59:00

13樓提及

---

12樓提及

---

11樓提及

---

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

我又覺得玩大D好, 多D人注意壓力才大, 多人討論先會有好結果

就玩大佢，一人一信投訴私隱專員公署，Webb的ID 有無留影

有得搞，但向邊個投訴？

---

16 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-17 10:46:10

15樓提及

---

13樓提及

---

12樓提及

---

11樓提及

---

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

我又覺得玩大D好, 多D人注意壓力才大, 多人討論先會有好結果

就玩大佢，一人一信投訴私隱專員公署，Webb的ID 有無留影

有得搞，但向邊個投訴？

私隱專員公署

---

17 : passby(15493)@2013-02-17 22:00:16

同警察投訴警察？
無用ga喎

---

18 : GS(14)@2013-02-18 21:33:00

17樓提及

---

同警察投訴警察？
無用ga喎

群眾壓力

---

19 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-22 00:48:27

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130221/18171890


【本報訊】個人資料私隱專員公署對David Webb的身份證號碼索引展開「循規審查」，又指滙集已公開的身份證號碼供人查閱或觸犯私隱條例。Webb昨去信公署，批評公署說法等於資訊封鎖，令香港大陸化，「在香港圍起資訊防火牆，離內地的防火長城僅一步之遙」。
獨立股評人David Webb從網上免費收集逾千名富豪及市民的身份證號碼，製成網上索引讓公眾查閱，上周接獲公署審查通知後感到受「恐嚇」，暫時抽起索引。Webb昨書面回覆公署的查詢，同時在網上公開信件。
日後或篩選瀏覽者IP

現時彭博商業周刊及維基百科等多個海外大型網站，公開大量名人的個人資料。Webb指出，若公署說法成立，港人經這些網站收集資料，即受私隱條例規管。內地封鎖敏感網站的荒謬情景將會在香港出現，日後海外網站或須篩選瀏覽者的IP位址，專門封鎖港人並發出警告：「對不起……我們不能確定你使用本站的個人資料是否符合當事人意願，因此你不能瀏覽本站。」
Webb指出，私隱條例理應只規管向當事人收集個人資料，藉以提供服務的公司，使用已公開的個人資料不應受規管，也毋須向當事人徵求同意，否則只會踐踏言論及出版自由。
Webb要求公署盡快澄清，以便他重新上載身份證號碼索引。對於公署早前指去年有約100宗使用他人身份證罪案，Webb直指公署誤導，因此統計包括盜用他人身份證，與身份證號碼索引無關。

---

20 : passby(15493)@2013-02-22 04:19:35

香港無david webb真係收得皮

---

21 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-23 11:22:21

壓他們啦

---

私隱署查港中介 指過度披露外傭僱主資料

1 : GS(14)@2014-11-21 11:39:49

http://www.mpfinance.com/htm/finance/20141121/news/ec_goc1.htm

【明報專訊】私隱專員公署調查本港10間外傭中介公司，發現全部都有過度披露外傭個人資料情，當中海盈及運通僱傭中心更將外傭前僱主的完整住址上網任人查閱，涉嫌違反私隱規定，公署已要求所有公司在3個星期內停止上述做法。香港僱傭代理協會主席張結民認為，公署要求以編號代替在網上展示外傭姓名並不合理，計劃與其他受影響的僱傭公司開會，商討上訴。


前僱主住址上網任查

被指披露外傭前僱主完整住址的海盈及運通僱傭中心，於公署調查期間已停止在網上披露外傭前僱主的住址。公署調查發現，8間中介公司披露外傭前僱主姓名，認為不必要，至昨日已有5間停止相關做法。另外，調查發現所有機構都披露外傭姓名，僅康樂居僱傭中心有限公司及宜家僱傭服務有限公司，改為以編號代替在網上展示外傭姓名。

香港個人資料私隱專員蔣任宏表示，在網上披露個人資料，與外傭中介公司直接向準僱主披露相同資料，是截然不同。他說，申請人提供的個人資料一旦在網上公開，便可能被其他人隨意查閱、複製甚至永久保存，也難以預料任何人可以再次使用有關資料及如何使用，故中介公司應小心處理外傭及其僱主的個人資料。

編號代姓名 中介：不合理

香港僱傭代理協會主席張結民本身亦是其中一間被調查的海外僱傭公司的董事總經理，認為公署要求停止在網上公布外傭僱主姓名及地址合理，但認為應容許披露僱主姓氏及地區，讓準僱主參考，「住半山的僱主通常會搵番曾在該區工作的外傭，有實際需要」。他認為，公署要求以編號代替外傭姓名並不合理，稍後會約私隱專員公署人員與業界開會。

香港家庭傭工僱主協會主席羅軍典認為，外傭中介公司沒必要將僱主或前僱主的個人資料上網，認為私隱專員公署要求恰當。

補習中介過度蒐個人資料

私隱專員公署昨公布另一項調查，發現6間補習中介網站(香港導師會、補習通、香港補習介紹中心、香港導師協會、香港大學生教育網、go2tutor.com)，過度收集和登記補習導師的身分證號碼，其中5間同時要求提供聯絡人姓名及電話號碼，合共涉及52萬人，違反保障資料規定，已要求該6間網站刪除。公署指有理由懷疑網站貪方便，抄襲競爭對手的運作模式至過度收集。

---

被指侵私隱　欠app支援Google Glass　未賣已叫停

1 : GS(14)@2015-01-18 21:38:55





潮人引頸以待的智能眼鏡Google Glass出師未捷身先死？Google Glass全面推售日期一直只聞樓梯聲響，Google前晚突然宣佈，下周一起停售試用版智能眼鏡，連讓用家體驗的「開發者計劃」亦暫停。Google否認放棄計劃，稱會待「適當時候」推出新版本。


■Google Glass團隊前年於三藩巿展示新產品。


Google Glass會離開Google的「X項目」，並納入智能家居組別，有關團隊將直接向法戴爾（Tony Fadell）匯報。過往亦有產品如Indoor Maps轉到其他組別發展，意味這些產品已經「成長」；不過分析員和業界都相信，Google Glass此舉是倒退，並非成長，又指它的發展根本未成熟。



曾被譽為潮物


英國中蘭開夏大學高級講師達尼翁（Nicky Danino）認為，Google Glass欠缺應用程式（app）支援是致命傷，「許多人花了錢買試用版，但Google Glass到手後才發現用處不大」。
Google Glass二○一二年起推出體驗計劃，透過邀請特定對象如開發商、比賽得獎者等參加試用，當時反應熱烈，被譽為潮人之物；去年五月，Google Glass開放予美國民眾購買，其後擴展至英國，訂購價為一千五百美元（約一萬一千七百港元）。



股東大會禁用


可是當民眾拿到試用版智能眼鏡使用時，卻發現乏味外表令用家大呼沒趣，而鏡框上的微型鏡頭更有侵犯他人私隱之嫌，因為用家可以暗中拍照和錄影，三藩巿有酒吧更因顧客為私隱問題發生多次爭執，遂禁止客人戴Google Glass光顧；最終連駕車、戲院、賭場、醫院和銀行，甚至連Google股東大會都禁止使用。
Google雖然不再出售Google Glass，但會繼續支援使用的公司，並強調沒有放棄智能眼鏡巿場，又指會繼續投資企業發展和公司的適用版本，待適當時候就會推出。英國《每日電訊報》





來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150117/19005823

---

爆料證據涉私隱機密舉報人疑與政府有關

1 : GS(14)@2015-09-23 02:18:10

【拆局】自從少林寺在釋永信打理下名揚世界後，關於他的各種負面傳聞不絕，但多是空穴來風，無憑無據；這次醜聞不一樣，舉報者不但持有宗教部門處理釋永信的文件影印本，更有公安調查釋永信和涉案女子的詳細筆錄，顯示舉報的背後牽連甚廣。新浪專欄觀察家朱少華指，「釋正義」舉報有備而來，其中大量材料來自政府單位，如公安的戶籍證明、口供筆錄；這些材料涉及個人隱私，本是不能隨便查閱的，但它們是怎麼流到舉報人手中的？這涉及洩密等違法違紀行為，如屬實公安要承擔責任。



相關部門「扮儍」看熱鬧

事發第一天少林寺已向公安報案，但舉報人仍從容不迫地放料，他是誰？本來有關部門很容易找到舉報人，查明真相對外回應，但所有部門都「扮儍」，彷彿與己無關，看熱鬧，不嫌事大，越熱鬧越好。這不是工作作風問題，而是心中有鬼。朱指出，釋永信作為少林寺掌門人，多年來與登封市甚至河南省政府不和諧、要獨立於政府的矛盾人所共知，地方政府要將景區門票漲價，遭少林寺反對，和尚們打橫額示威，釋永信還以全國人大代表便利，在人大會議等場合批評地方政府盤剝少林寺。朱續指，這場舉報事件雖有點桃色，但絕非娛樂節目，舉報一旦查實，不僅少林方丈無顏面，少林寺及至中國佛教協會的聲譽都受重創，同時還存在嚴重腐敗問題，更可能牽扯到上上下下的官員和商人，甚至關係到少林寺生死存亡，當局不應視若不見。新浪網





來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20150803/19241374

---

盛智文：夜店時代已改變 消費者追求高私隱 大場結業不意外

1 : GS(14)@2015-10-05 23:44:26

http://www.mpfinance.com/htm/finance/20151005/news/ea_eaa1.htm





【明報專訊】DIZZI然後是Beijing Club，近期兩間蘭桂坊大型夜店接連結業，不僅城中夜蒲達人少了落腳地，亦令人感嘆，莫非夜蒲黃金時代已不再？有「蘭桂坊之父」之稱的盛智文表示，夜蒲文化瞬息萬變，就像時尚一樣，人們現在更喜歡面積較小、更私密的會所，大型會所已被人厭倦，它們是「變老了」，但夜蒲生活仍會繼續存在。

明報記者 孫娜

上市紅極一時的「夜蒲股」Magnum(2080)難敵租金高企及收入下滑，今年宣布關閉於蘭桂坊的DIZZI及Beijing Club。翻查資料，兩間會所面積分別為1.2萬呎及7300呎，其中Beijing Club更有3層樓高，已屹立在蘭桂坊有8年之久。

不及時改變 就會被淘汰

盛智文稱，自己在會所行業數十年，看慣了不同的會所來來去去，因為人們總是喜歡去新的地方，就像時尚一樣。他稱，當下人們更喜歡可以真正聊天及跳舞的小型會所，而不是吵鬧的大型會所，無論歷史多久、名聲多響的會所，若不及時改變就會被淘汰。他指，「Beijing實在太大了」，相信結業後會分拆出租。

近期內地遊客減少令本港零售及旅遊倍受打擊，不過盛智文表示，酒吧及餐飲業所受影響不大，稱「我們還好」。他指，內地團隊遊客向來不是蘭桂坊的主要客人，而租客中也沒有高端奢侈品牌，反而近期珠寶展等大型活動在港舉辦，令晚上光顧的商業旅客增多。

相比起寸金尺土的香港，內地蘭桂坊項目擴張迅速，目前成都蘭桂坊已薄有名氣，而海口蘭桂坊將於年底開業，上海及無錫的項目亦正在動工，估計分別於2017年及2016年落成(見表)。與香港蘭桂坊不同，內地的項目不僅包括餐飲及會所，還包括購物商場、電影院甚至辦公樓等，位於上海的「夢中心」面積更達46萬平方米，盛智文笑稱「更像一個村莊」。

他表示，5年前與政府合作的蘭桂坊成都項目相當成功，四川悠閒的生活方式與蘭桂坊的酒吧文化相得益彰。

蘭桂坊進駐內地多個城市

他又透露，現在幾乎每天都能接到不同內地城市政府的電話或郵件，包括武漢、重慶、大連及青島等，希望他可以把香港的蘭桂坊酒吧街也帶到該城市，至於下個蘭桂坊會落戶哪個城市，他稱目前正在逐個城市研究。

盛智文指，內地經濟雖然正經歷放緩，但生活方式(Lifestyle)相關消費依然高速發展，尤其是國家主席習近平大力促進內需，相信內地市場增長潛力依然巨大。不過，他稱自己同樣重視香港業務，目前發展重點是改建後的新加州大廈， 已有多間餐廳營業，預計11月會正式開幕。

---

2 : GS(14)@2015-10-05 23:44:48

http://www.mpfinance.com/htm/finance/20151005/news/ea_eaa2.htm
籲港府主動投資創意產業
  2015年10月5日

【明報專訊】「Hong Kong is stuck.(香港被困住了)」 談及香港正面臨的問題，盛智文這樣評論。他稱，香港社會正在走向兩極化，人們互相指摘，個自懷著不同的目的。同時，中國內地卻飛速發展，香港靜止不動。他稱，香港政府需主導發展創意產業，因為「這是一切產業的未來」，而為保證快速有效的行政須實現特首真正由香港人民普選選出，呼籲雙方都要妥協。

像風險投資機構 扶持創業

盛智文表示，近來各種衝突是反映社會系統問題，因為住房短缺、年輕人上升無路等問題，很多香港人將生活艱辛怪罪到內地遊客、政府身上。他指由於租金昂貴，許多科技創業的年輕人只能借用他們父親辦公室，而另因黨派反對，政府連一個創科局長都選不出來。他稱，儘管香港有低稅率、法制完善等優勢，但隨覑電子商務等產業崛起，周圍的世界正飛速發展，若不能創造新的產業，香港永遠只會回到發展地產和金融的老路上。

盛智文稱，要發展創意產業，政府必須承擔更多責任。他指，香港本身並不缺乏創意因子，當年香港電影、粵語流行歌曾享譽世界，惟近年卻輸給了韓國。他表示，在土地如此昂貴的情下，政府應該像風險投資機構一樣，廣泛扶持創業公司，「不需要收那麼多錢」，就算輸錢也不要緊，因為總有一些會開花結果。他稱，「創意行業是一切行業的未來，不是政府可以隨便丟下不管的事情。」

特首無法普選 「香港被困」

盛智文表示，特首無法實現普選是「香港被困」的重要原因，因為即便特首在現行體制下是合法的，但人們總是可以說他是小圈子選出來的不代表我，這也導致政府施政阻力重重，提案總是在政治口水中被淹沒，無法真正著手社會急需解決的問題，令香港落後於周邊地區。他稱，「年輕人需要明白，他們在傷害他們的未來。」

---

3 : GS(14)@2015-10-05 23:45:02

http://www.mpfinance.com/htm/finance/20151005/news/ea_eaa3.htm
仍積極參與海洋公園事務
  2015年10月5日

【明報專訊】雖然盛智文已於去年「被卸任」海洋公園董事局主席一職，轉任顧問，但他依然心繫海洋公園發展。他稱，現在幾乎每天都會與現任管理層討論公園所面臨的挑戰，笑稱自己仍「very very involved(非常積極參與)」。

坦言「被卸任」不開心

盛智文在海洋公園工作逾10年，得知不獲續任時，雖坦言「不開心」，但這不影響他繼續以顧問身分為海洋公園出謀劃策，稱「無論政府說什麼，海洋公園仍是我的小孩(still my baby)」，他更表示，「我從來不聽政府說的，我只做我覺得對的事情。」

近期香港旅遊業不景氣，曾創造無數輝煌的海洋公園也難免受衝擊。盛智文表示，內地旅行團遊客減少為主因，他指海洋公園7月份表現很差，8月份有提升，最近幾個星期內地遊客似乎又有所增長。他稱，內地及周邊國家大型主題公園迅速擴張，香港需要加快發展；但他亦稱海洋公園特別之處在於對香港人的「世代價值」，是「祖父母、 父母及小孩長大的地方 」。

黃金周表現或高於預期

針對黃金周，盛智文表示儘管業界普遍悲觀，但他仍認為本港總體旅遊表現可與去年持平，稱長假期及中國遊客數目龐大等因素會令黃金周最終表現高於預期，持謹慎樂觀態度。

---

拍卡支付功能洩私隱金管局叫停七銀行信用卡

1 : GS(14)@2015-10-14 07:22:36

【本報訊】7間銀行信用卡出事！非接觸式支付（簡稱拍卡支付）功能加密要求有漏洞，令客戶全名與交易資料被手機應用程式非法讀取。金管局昨不點名要求這些銀行暫停、回收及更換有問題信用卡，惟涉事的中銀及星展客戶服務，均指未有更換信用卡安排通知。有用家失去信心，表示會將信用卡「扔埋一邊」。　記者：周家誠　劉美儀　黃珮琳


據消息透露，除了前日已知悉的中銀香港及星展香港外，涉事銀行還包括交銀香港、信銀國際、工銀亞洲、大新銀行及華僑永亨。有使用中銀拍卡支付信用卡的客戶，懷疑兩次被盜用信用卡來作銀行簽賬，與這些信用卡漏洞有關，「我其他卡都冇事，係得呢張卡出事，有諗過係咪呢張卡洩漏咗我資料」。



客戶不敢再用

至於持有星展Compass Visa白金卡3年的朱先生稱，平日會使用該卡到超級市場、便利店及戲院消費，得悉事件後會將卡擱置一旁，但不會取消該卡，「反正都唔會收年費，睇星展點應對」。《蘋果》記者以客人身份向星展客戶服務查詢換卡事宜，職員稱客戶感擔憂的話，可到分行更換一張沒有拍卡支付功能的信用卡；若繼續持有，則要小心不讓任何器械貼近，但暫時未有更換新卡通知。至於中銀香港客服表示，暫時未有更換信用卡安排，又指所謂有問題的信用卡，其應用程式只閱讀到客戶名稱，不會牽涉實際交易層面，與交易安全性無關下，暫無意更換，反映金管局的要求或未完全落實。星展及中銀前日已承認事件，交銀及信銀表示已暫停發出拍卡支付信用卡並跟進；工銀指會積極加強現有信用卡檢查機制；華僑永亨表示會與監管機構緊密合作；大新則未有回覆。信銀資訊科技及營運總監梁健文指，洩漏問題與該行系統無關，強調該行未有將客戶姓名放入信用卡內，只因其信用卡均含提款卡功能，而提款卡屬銀通（Jetco）管理範疇。



促回收問題卡

據悉銀通使用的印卡公司Gemalto出現問題，該公司發言人截稿前未回覆。金管局發言人表示，全港11間有發行拍卡支付信用卡的銀行中，7間發行的部份信用卡，未符該局於2012年針對非接觸式信用卡的要求，即銀行須確保儲存卡內，可透過非接觸方式讀取的資料，只限於必須用來交易的資料，且不能包括用戶全名；對於7間銀行的非接觸式信用卡發卡量，該局未有透露。據了解，有兩家拍卡支付服務的供應商，將客戶姓名儲存卡內，未經授權人士可經「Banking Card Reader」及「Cardtest」手機程式偷資料，該局已要求相關銀行暫停發出不符要求的非接觸式信用卡，盡快通知受影響客戶，並查證問題原因，盡快採取補救行動及糾正措施，包括回收及更換有關信用卡。發言人續表示，雖然按照有關銀行評估，資料即使被讀取，並不影響非接觸式信用卡交易的安全性，銀行亦監察機制，惟事件可能涉及透露非必要的個人資料，該局已經向私穩專員公署通報事宜。個人資料私隱專員公署對外洩資料事件，表示關注，並已就此展開循規審查，該署提醒發卡銀行或機構，需注意《個人資料（私隱）條例》的保障規定。





來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20151014/19332584

---

管理公司打卡要套指紋員工抗洩私隱被炒

1 : GS(14)@2015-10-29 07:34:47

為港九多個住宅物業及商場等提供管理服務的大昌物業管理，被指強行徵集員工指紋資料用作考勤，如有不從一律視作曠工開除。有前線員工不滿已有打卡鐘及閉路電視錄影，認為安裝指紋識別系統是矯枉過正、多此一舉。大昌解釋正在測試電子考勤系統，現時屬過渡階段才會雙軌並行，又否認因電子考勤解僱員工。一名現職大昌的員工向本報表示，今年8月初接獲該公司人力資源部經理的書面通知，要求所有員工強制性填寫個人資料，並收集各人的指紋並拍照，用作安裝電子指紋識別系統，以記錄員工的考勤時間，因為現行打卡鐘及閉路電視都不能有效管制員工出勤。據該員工稱，前線人員一度拒絕，惟遭即時訓斥，並聲稱如拒絕填報個人資料並簽署收集指紋的同意書，以致新系統無法確認員工身份，公司將一律當作曠工予以開除。該員工表示深感私隱得不到尊重，又稱已向個人資料私隱專員公署報告事件。另一前線員工向本報指出，是有人「新官上任要做啲嘢，多此一舉」，又透露早前一個由該公司負責管理的地盤，有6名夜更人員因拒絕填寫同意書，最終被公司以「偷懶」等理由全數被解僱。私隱專員公署不評論個別人士或機構有否違反《個人資料（私隱）條例》，但一般而言僱主收集指紋資料前，要確定有特定目的和實際需要，而又沒有其他替代方法可達致相同目的，減低侵犯私隱程度。今年7月公署更曾指出，一家時裝貿易公司以保安及監察員工考勤為由收集僱員指紋資料，屬於超乎適度和不公平收集資料。公署又表示，僱主收集指紋資料時，不應對僱員施加不恰當的影響或威嚇，以取得僱員的同意，認為僱主、僱員間的談判實力並不均等，除非僱主有給予其他選擇，否則僱員給予的同意也可能並非自願。大昌回覆本報查詢時承認，正在部份大廈進行電子考勤系統測試，解釋解釋由於仍在測試中，故打卡方式現階段仍要同時進行，但否認曾因此解僱任何員工，指員工離職屬自然流失。記者馬志剛





來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20151029/19352029

---

德廉航空難報告︰機師病歷私隱應通報

1 : GS(14)@2016-03-15 16:07:53

德國之翼航空公司客機去年3月24日撞向阿爾卑斯山造成150人死亡的空難，法國民航安全調查分析局（BEA）昨日發表最終調查報告，指當時駕駛客機撞山的副機長盧比茨患精神病，要求當局制訂清晰指引，列明如機師有精神問題時將不受私隱法例保障。



副機長曾被轉介精神病院

報告指盧比茨在空難發生前兩周，其私人醫生曾轉介他到精神病院接受治療，調查員亦相信盧比茨在2014年12月開始出現精神病症狀，之後曾多次向醫生求診，但醫生基於保障病人私隱為由，未有一人向航空當局或德國之翼通報。而其他跟盧比茨共事的機師未有察覺他的精神狀態有異樣。
BEA認為事件證明德國法例欠清晰指引，要求在公眾安全威脅大於病人私隱權時，列明患精神病機師的病歷私隱將不受保護，醫療專家須向當局通報，另建議收緊有精神病紀錄機師的跟進檢查規例，以防再發生同類空難。雖然盧比茨事發時曾反鎖駕駛艙，令機長松德海默未能折返阻止悲劇發生，但BEA表示仍有必要保護駕駛艙免受襲擊者進入，因此不應修改現時駕駛艙上鎖的規定。法新社/美聯社/路透社





來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20160314/19528386

---

須受「剝光豬」式盤問談性私隱

1 : GS(14)@2016-03-18 23:55:47

【話你知】美國最高法院（圖）大法官須遴選程序極為嚴謹，全因最高法院對有分歧的重大社會問題，例如墮胎、選舉爭議、死刑等，有一錘定音的最終裁決權。



任命終身制

候選人首先要由總統提名、由參議院司法委員會舉行聽證會，最後再交由參議院表決是否通過任命，其間須通過多重背景審查，而交代過去的納稅紀錄、健康狀況、感情生活、商業交易等都只屬基本。現任高院法官肯尼迪表示，當年聯邦調查局（FBI）和白宮顧問對他「剝光豬」式盤問10多小時，沒有底線可言，包括問他有沒有玩過性變態遊戲？做愛頻密程度？有沒有染過性病？有沒有打過女朋友？同3K黨有沒有關係等等。高院9位大法官對案件以簡單多數投票的結果，就是美國的終審判決，因此美國社會對法官的品格有極高要求。為了確保法官的超然地位，他們的任命都是終身制，除非自願退休，否則他們可以做到最後一口氣。當然，如果大法官叛國、貪腐或干犯嚴重罪行，國會可以動議彈劾和罷免他，但美國立國200多年來從未有過先例。美聯社





來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20160318/19534502

---

護女私隱：返學遲到早退避追訪

1 : GS(14)@2016-03-31 14:12:49

■劉德華與朱麗倩非常重視囡囡的私隱度。資料圖片


劉德華由結婚到生女均低調處理，女兒劉向蕙未滿3歲前，一家三口為避記者追訪，曾入住尖沙嘴服務式住宅聽濤閣，囡囡出世兩個月到中環打預防針時，更以遮陣阻擋記者。即使女兒真身已曝光，華仔亦沒有解除防線。去年女兒到3歲適齡入學，有傳他打算讓囡囡入讀創價或德望幼稚園，但自消息曝光後，華仔即時轉plan，成功扣門入讀私隱度極高、位於何文田君逸山的名校維多利亞幼稚園。華仔除每日加派保鑣接送女兒返學放學，有指他亦獲學校通融，可讓囡囡每日返學可以遲到早退，務求做到滴水不漏！





來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/entertainment/art/20160331/19550982

---