[ad_1]
At a demonstration in Hong Kong in 2019, social media – the sharing of bad information on the internet – was widespread.
Demonstrators used Facebook and Telegram to spread information about police officers accused of violence, and government officials published secrets of opposition politicians, freedom fighters and journalists.
“Tools like this are the worst way to go [use] we have seen in action, ” He said Hong Kong privacy director for privacy. Between June 2019 and March 2020, there were approximately 5,000 complaint cases reported, or disclosed by the Commissioner, according to the department’s annual report. Several people who spoke to the police were arrested. Throughout 2020, doxing cases dropped by nearly 1,000 as protests collapsed during the epidemic.
Hong Kong is now taking action by taking part in a series of changes to the privacy policy. As such, it has raised concerns that the new measures will give local authorities a safer way to reduce freedom of expression, reduce access to public information and restrict the use of television stations.
Companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have warned of a change in policy that would give the private sector more power to prosecute and illuminate corporate entertainment agencies for not removing their content. It may also make it possible for workers in religious groups to take advantage of it. And Hong Kong has said it could block access to doxing websites.
Talented groups say so can be forced discontinuing employment in the area due to change. “The only way to avoid this is to work at it. . . they can avoid refunding and providing assistance in Hong Kong, ”says the Asia Internet Coalition, which represents technical groups.
This idea means that sharing your online information that could lead to “mental injury” could result in severe penalties plus up to five years in prison. The AIC states that this is a very broad term and was not intended to be used as a legal test.
Alternatively, regulators should be allowed to withhold some of their information, such as all identification numbers, from a company register in Hong Kong.
This has led to that anxiety that regulators are able to use their names in a variety of languages to prevent anonymity, leading to more fraud. Following the outcry from regulatory agencies, brokers, lawyers and accountants – who use the registry for research and advocacy – some people, such as those who ban companies, may ask for more information.
There are reasons why Hong Kong should take action because of the misuse of public resources. Hong Kong’s privacy policy comes from far behind other countries, especially in violation of corporate policy. And the harm done to people who suffer from doxs’ activities should not be minimized.
Opponents, however, argue that the response to the policy in Hong Kong could significantly impede free publication for good reason. This could tarnish Hong Kong’s reputation as a global business destination.
“It’s China’s most innovative way of working, designed to make the government more intelligent in terms of how the rules are enforced,” says a senior consultant in the technology industry.
In China, struggle During a promotional program for riders Didi last week demonstrated how the data protection service can be put to good use, thereby saving billions of dollars in corporate value.
Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam has allayed his concerns over the implementation of the new rules, saying the session is just about looking “illegal”. However, its encouragement would not have comforted the foreign business. Funeral to compare The secret of knowledge is what happened during the enactment of the national security law last year, which has profoundly changed Hong Kong law.
And for global companies operating in Hong Kong, these new approaches address the growing challenges – how have circuit overseers applied the rules? And is there anything that can happen that only the secret can be solved by legal means?
“In the past, there was a belief,” said a senior financial adviser, “but this suspicion has been dispelled.”
[ad_2]
Source link
