The interesting piece on phone tapping (South China Morning Post, August 21) contains one statement which, without qualification, might mislead. This was: 'It is not illegal in Hong Kong for either party to tape record telephone conversations and consent is not required from the person at the other end.' This may depend on the content of the conversation and the circumstances. If the taped call contains any personal details relating to an individual (including an expression of opinion), then the taping would appear to be the collection of data. If it is reasonably practicable to identify the individual to whom the personal details relate (the data subject) directly or indirectly, the data would then seem to be likely to fall under the definition of 'personal data' in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. This definition includes 'any representation of information' and data on tape. And if the person providing the personal details is the data subject, Principle 1 of the Ordinance would seem to require that he or she be informed - on or before taping the call - of the purpose for which the data will be used, and that the data will be collected by means which are fair in the circumstances of the case (for example, not recorded without his or her knowledge). A contravention of Principle 1 is not itself illegal, but if the Privacy Commissioner issues an enforcement notice against such a contravention, any subsequent breach would be illegal. ROY GRUBB North Point