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: 0090/2012/IP

Title: Telephone sales promotion

Reason: Complaint

Brief:

    Citizen A indicated that he had received cold calls.  The callers called themselves as the employees of Company A and the numbers they called were randomly generated.  X immediately and expressly refused to receive any further cold calls. After that, however, X kept receiving calls from Company A.  Most of these were calls from hidden numbers, except a few displayed as 853-XXXX, in addition that party that called each time knew X’s name.  Whenever receiving these cold calls, he expressly asked the caller not to call him anymore but calls continued.
  X was in the opinion that what Company A did could be violating the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA, or Law 8/2005) and asked the GPDP to follow up.

Analysis:

 
  According to Article 4(1)(1) and Article 3(1) of the PDPA, the processing of the data of this case should be governed by the same Law.
  The GPDP contacted Company A, which mentioned that none of its employees had ever called X’s number, nor did the Company maintain any records of calling his number.
  As most of the cold calls were hidden numbers or displayed as 853-XXXX, the GPDP cannot identify the caller’s identity.  Furthermore, X failed to provide any evidence showing that Company A had ever called him for telemarketing purposes. Later, with the number of Company A that GPDP found through public search, the call records of X’s number and Company A’s number were verified with Bureau B and Telecommunication Company C.  Both the latter expressed that no records were retrieved between the numbers of X and Company A.  Therefore, at present no evidence supported that Company A called X and processed his personal data. 
  Currently no information showing that Company A violated the right to object as provided in Article 12 of the PDPA.  However, to ensure the right to object the GPDP required Company A in future, no matter making cold calls by itself or by any organization it had commissioned, it should record those numbers whose users refused receiving the cold calls and should compile a list of such users.  This could repeatedly prevent calling these users in the future. 
  In conclusion, no evidence showing that Company A violated the provisions of the PDPA.  But Company A should improve its data processing.

Result:

    The GPDP informed X and Company A the result of the investigation and recommended Company A improve accordingly.  The case has been closed.

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