Terminating Dishonest Helper - attached toddler

In case anyone's still interested in the law...

The relevant law is contained in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance:
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/WebView?OpenAgent&vwpg=CurAllEngDoc*486*100*486.1#486.1

The starting point is that, as a parent, you do have a right to demand access to "personal data" that anyone holds of your child, and to demand correction/deletion of such data (data is defined in a way that can include pictures). There is also a duty, as far as possible, to obtain the consent of the "data subject" (ie your child) before the data is collected. However, the domestic use exemption would apply here which means ultimately, there is nothing you can do to get your helper to delete those pictures:
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_...B58AD05BD2424DDEC82564830033F6FC?OpenDocument

You can always consider making an enquiry with the Privacy Commissioner, but as far as I can see there isn't much ground for a complaint.
 
anotherone said:
In case anyone's still interested in the law...

The relevant law is contained in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance:
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/WebView?OpenAgent&vwpg=CurAllEngDoc*486*100*486.1#486.1

The starting point is that, as a parent, you do have a right to demand access to "personal data" that anyone holds of your child, and to demand correction/deletion of such data (data is defined in a way that can include pictures). There is also a duty, as far as possible, to obtain the consent of the "data subject" (ie your child) before the data is collected. However, the domestic use exemption would apply here which means ultimately, there is nothing you can do to get your helper to delete those pictures:
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_...B58AD05BD2424DDEC82564830033F6FC?OpenDocument

You can always consider making an enquiry with the Privacy Commissioner, but as far as I can see there isn't much ground for a complaint.
Click to expand...

Sorry, personal data under the HK Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance doesn't include photos. Have dealt with this law and what it does cover extensively in the context of employment law but don't have time to dig up more specifics right now. Additionally, even if the photos were considered data under the ordinance (they aren't) there is a broad exemption from the provisions of the law for personal data held for domestic or recreational purposes, which would cover photos.

Not trying to be difficult and in fact I an pretty against other people photographing my kid without my permission, but in HK the law does not side with the subject of the photograph in terms of who can take and keep images.
 
elle said:
Sorry, personal data under the HK Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance doesn't include photos. Have dealt with this law and what it does cover extensively in the context of employment law but don't have time to dig up more specifics right now. Additionally, even if the photos were considered data under the ordinance (they aren't) there is a broad exemption from the provisions of the law for personal data held for domestic or recreational purposes, which would cover photos.

Not trying to be difficult and in fact I an pretty against other people photographing my kid without my permission, but in HK the law does not side with the subject of the photograph in terms of who can take and keep images.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you on the law not being on the side of the data subject, photographs or otherwise. But I did refer very clearly to the domestic exemption so am not sure what you're arguing about on that point.

As for the ordinance not covering photographs, that would be news to my colleagues who are the experts on the PDPO. I shall get to the bottom of it once I get a chance to. But going by the definition of "personal data" under the PDPO I would be very surprised indeed if photographs fall outside that definition. Would be grateful for any decision that backs up your claim.
 
elle said:
Sorry, personal data under the HK Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance doesn't include photos. Have dealt with this law and what it does cover extensively in the context of employment law but don't have time to dig up more specifics right now. Additionally, even if the photos were considered data under the ordinance (they aren't) there is a broad exemption from the provisions of the law for personal data held for domestic or recreational purposes, which would cover photos.
Click to expand...

I am also surprised to read that a photograph does not constitute personal data as this was covered by the Court of Appeal in the Eastweek v Privacy Commissioner case (CACV 331 of 1999). In paragraph 32 of the judgment, it states:

​
" Mr Griffiths argued that a photograph cannot be data. With respect, I disagree. The definition of data as a "representation of information ....... in any document" is clearly apt of cover a photograph. A photograph may clearly constitute "a pictorial representation of information about a person's physical features and appearance in a document", it being common ground that photographs come within the concept of "document" as defined by the Ordinance."

As far as I am aware, this is still the leading case on photos under the PDPO, but if there is a more recent case I'd be interested to know more.
 
Portia said:
I am also surprised to read that a photograph does not constitute personal data as this was covered by the Court of Appeal in the Eastweek v Privacy Commissioner case (CACV 331 of 1999). In paragraph 32 of the judgment, it states:

​
" Mr Griffiths argued that a photograph cannot be data. With respect, I disagree. The definition of data as a "representation of information ....... in any document" is clearly apt of cover a photograph. A photograph may clearly constitute "a pictorial representation of information about a person's physical features and appearance in a document", it being common ground that photographs come within the concept of "document" as defined by the Ordinance."

As far as I am aware, this is still the leading case on photos under the PDPO, but if there is a more recent case I'd be interested to know more.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
i think she means the OWNERS of the flat/house... that's how i read it anyway. otherwise, it is an obvious mistake in what she wrote. i don't, for a second, believe that the OP thinks she OWNS the helpers, or that she should own them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top