customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

knowledgeQuestion

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

JULIE CHU

Police had no right to search the content of a mobile phone seized from a person arrested following last year’s July 1 march as data stored in the Cloud was not covered by a law drafted more than 20 years ago, the High Court heard yesterday.
Barrister Hectar Pun SC, representing protester Sham Wing-kan said: “All information stored on a smartphone is not subject to be searched because the information was stored [in the Cloud].”
He suggested the police read the Police Ordinance “too widely” and asked the court to declare the ordinance “unconstitutional”.
He urged the court to review section 50 (6) of the Police Ordinance – which says officers can search for and take possession of any document found on anyone apprehended, if a police officer “may reasonably suspect [it] to be of value to the investigation”.
Pun argued the ordinance was drafted in 1992 when there were no smartphones. He asked if it authorised police to access everything from a device that could access data from outside storage.
“[The ordinance] is too wide to catch everything,” Pun said. “It is a matter to be legislated.”
Barrister Gerard McCoy SC, representing another protester Chan Sin-ying, said his client was arrested three days after the march and her phone was seized after she was arrested.
He asked why Chan’s phone had to be seized over such a minor offence particularly when her arrest was 72 hours after the event.
He said a proper policy should be imposed, but that it would be better if it came from an external party rather than the police’s internal policy.
Barrister Johnny Mok SC, representing the Commissioner of Police, said it was necessary for the police to access information from the phone of arrested persons during investigations.
He said article 30 of the Basic Law already protected Hong Kong residents’ freedom and privacy of communication. According to the ordinance, relevant authorities could only inspect communication “in accordance with legal procedures to meet the needs of public security or investigation into criminal offences”.
He argued it had already given enough protection to the public.
Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung said he would give his decision at a later date.


Smartphone data stored in Cloud is beyond reach of Hong Kong law, lawyer argues in July 1 protester case

View of a class of university of Shatin where students use a new CUHK develop cloud-based interactive system on food sciences to boost teaching. Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, September 21, 2012. 21SEP12

Police had no right to search the content of a mobile phone seized from a person arrested as data stored in the Cloud was not covered by a law drafted more than 20 years ago, the High Court heard yesterday.

News

Hong Kong

Law and Crime

Law drafted 20 years ago not relevant in the era of smartphones, High Court hears
