個人資料保護辦公室

Gabinete para a Protecção de Dados Pessoais

Office for Personal Data Protection

Complaint Case Notes
Print

No: 0076/2012/IP

Title: Telemarketing calls with no caller ID displayed

Reason: Complaint

Brief:

    Resident X said that he received at least two telemarketing calls from Store A, no caller ID was displayed in these calls.  When X asked how the caller found out his number, he said the number was randomly selected despite the caller identified his last name.  X refused the telemarketing in each call but the telemarketing calls continued.   
  X alleged that Store A improperly obtained his contact number and requested the Office for Personal Data Protection (GPDP) to follow up.

Analysis:

 
  In accordance with Articles 4(1)(1) and 3(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA, or Law 8/2005), the data processing in this case is within the regulatory scope of the said Law.
  Investigation reveals that the services of Store A have been promoted in the advertisement of Medical Center B and Beauty Center C.  The workplace of Center B has been relocated to Center C.  In other words, Center C is currently the only entity responsible for promoting Store A.  The GPDP found the contact numbers of Center B and Centre C from public information, and sent letters to Bureau D for information, but no data showed that Store A called X.  In Center C’s written reply, it stated that X is not its members.  The GPDP is in the opinion that due to the fact that no caller ID was displayed in these telemarketing calls, it cannot verify the registered user of the telephone number.  Meanwhile, X failed to prove that the Store A contacted him for telemarketing and Centre C illegally obtained his contact number.  At this stage, there is no evidence proved that it has contacted X or processed the personal data of X.
  As for the fact that X still received telemarketing calls from Center C after he had exercised his right to object according to Article 12(2) of the PDPA, there is no evidence showed that Center C has called X and continued to conduct telemarketing after his objection.  According to Center C’s reply, upon the opposition of a telemarketing subject, it would register the opposition and would stop further contacting this person, as well as shredding or tearing to destroy all his information.  Hence Center C has already developed appropriate policies to ensure the right to object of the customers.  Based on this, there is no evidence showing that Center C’s conduct has violated the right of objection as regulated in Article 12 of the PDPA.
  In summary, Center C’s conduct did not violate the Personal Data Protection Act.

Result:

    The case had been closed.  Center C and X have been informed of the results.

Reference:
Please refer to "Personal Data Protection Act", articles 3, 4 and 12 .

Back

Avenida da Praia Grande, N.º 804, Edif. China Plaza, 17.º andar, Macau Tel:(853) 2871 6006 Fax:(853) 2871 6116