Complaint Case Notes

編號: 0079/2011/IP

標題: Tourist guide asked students’ for their phone numbers and their social network information

立案原因: Referral


    The Consumer Council referred a case to GPDP. In this case, School A entrusted Company B a graduation trip for its senior students, which was taken over by Company B in Hong Kong later. During the trip, on numerous occasions, the tourist guide, sent by Company B, asked the students’ phone numbers and social network information.
  School A believed the tourist guide possibly violated the professional ethics and invaded the students’ privacy.


    Under Article 4(1)(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act (Law 8/2005), the data involved in the case is regarded as the students’ personal data.
  Company B, a Hong Kong company, in its response, pointed out that the tourist guide collected the contact information of these students was the “normal and polite social interaction a tourist guide has”. It also expressed that the company did not have any rights to interfere further.
  With regard the tourist guide, when carrying out his duties, collected the contact information of these students, such an act is not within the scope of “a purely personal or household activity” stipulated by Article 3(2) of the said Law, as GPDP regarded. If a tourist guide collected contact information for private use, instead of for his duties, during his work is on suspicion of work abuse.
  Since the tour guide, from Hong Kong, of the current case is bound by the Code of Conduct for Tourist Guides, Code of Conduct for Outbound Tour Escort, and so forth, as issued by the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong. Moreover, he is also supervised by authorized institutions like the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong. Hereto, according to the letter sent by the Consumer Council, as also forwarded to School A, the abovementioned incident has already been transferred to the concerned institutions in Hong Kong for follow-up.
  Due to the personal data was processed by the said tour guide outside Macao, so the GPDP is not authorized to intervene.
  In conclusion, GPDP is not authorized to intervene the personal data processing the present case involved.


    GPDP informed School A, in writing, of the above mentioned analysis and the possibility of asking GPDP to refer this case to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD), Hong Kong. This case was closed.

Please refer to "Personal Data Protection Act", articles 3,4 .