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: 0101/2012/IP

Title: Keep receiving cold calls after objection

Reason: Complaint

Brief:

    X indicated that he had received quite a number of cold calls and the callers identified themselves as Company A’s employees. When asked, the callers indicated that X had visited Company A before. For this, X mentioned that he was never a customer of Company A and asked the calling party to stop calling him for telemarketing. However, he kept receiving calls from this Company and the callers could spell out X’s surname. After that, Company A used the telephone number G to call X for telemarketing and the employees said that the number they called were randomly generated.  When A said that he had already reported to the police about this, the caller replied that they would delete the telephone number and then hung up.
  X believed that his privacy had been violated as Company A stored his number and called him purposely instead of selecting his number by random.  Therefore he reported to the Office for Personal Data Protection (GPDP) as believing that it was a violation of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

Analysis:

 
  According to the investigations by the GPDP, Company A indicated that neither its employees in Hong Kong nor those in Macau had ever called X’s number and the Company did not maintain any records of the concerned mobile number.
  Through public search the GPDP found the number of Company A and verified with Bureau B and Telecommunication Company C based on the telephone number of X.  Both of these two organizations replied that no call records between these two numbers were retrieved.
  The GPDP learned from Bureau B that the registered user of number G, which was used to called X, was K, so the GPDP sent a letter to K and asked him to provide the related information to the GPDP.  However, no response was received.  In addition, the GPDP also required Bureau D to provide assistance.  Even the GPDP attempted to contact K by phone for quite a number of times, nobody answered.
  The GPDP, with the presently available information, could not find out the background information or occupation of K and could not justify whether K was informed of the internal operations of Company A and its promotion policies.  In addition, Company A denied that it had ever called X for product or service promotions, no evidence showed that Company A had ever called X and continued to call even after X refused.  In conclusion, no evidence supported that Company A violated the PDPA, but further improvement should be made for the process of Company A.

Result:

    The GPDP has informed Company A and X the investigation result and recommended Company A prepare a list of customers who refused to receive the promotional information. This case has been closed.

Reference:
Please refer to "Personal Data Protection Act", article 12.

Back

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