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: 0089/2012/IP

Title: Legitimacy of acquiring personal data

Reason: Complaint

Brief:

    Resident X alleged that he had received telemarketing calls of Store A (the displayed Caller ID is 00).  The caller could tell the fake last name of X (which was given by X during a survey), and said that the information was taken from the record of a phone survey or from the registration X made for his shopping.  X said that he never shopped in Store A, and suspected that the questionnaire distributor transferred his personal data to Store A without his consent.  In addition, X told the caller that he would not accept marketing calls in the future.
  X suspected that Store A has violated the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), and required 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, the data processing involved in this case is within the scope of regulation idem.
  Investigation reveals that the services of Store A are promoted by the advertisement of Medical Center B and Beauty Center C.  The workplace of Center B has been relocated to Center C, i.e., Center C is currently the only company responsible for promoting Store A.
  The GPDP obtained the telephone numbers of Centers B and C from public information, and sent letters to Bureau E and Telecommunications Company F, inquiring whether the centers had called the phone number of X, but all of them replied that no data showed the organization whom X complained of called him.  Center C in its written reply stated that the phone number of X was not a registered member of the Store.  Because the number of the telemarketing call was displayed as 00, the GPDP cannot verify the registered user of the number.  Meanwhile, X failed to prove that the organization which he complained of made the telemarketing calls and failed to prove that Center C obtained his phone number illegally.  Therefore, there is no evidence proving that Center C has telephoned X or processed the personal data of X.  As for the fact that X still received telemarketing calls of Center C after he had exercised the right to object under Article 12(2) of the PDPA, there is no evidence that Center C has called X and continued to conduct telemarketing after his objection.  And Center C replied in a letter that upon the opposition of the telemarketing subject, the Center would record the opposition and stop any further contacts, and would delete the relevant information with a shredder or by tearing.  Based on this, there is no evidence showing that Center C’s conduct violated the right of objection regulated by Article 12 of the Personal Data Protection Act.
  In summary, Company 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 result.

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