Complaints greet snooping watchdog's first day at work
Three complaints against government snooping had already been filed by the time the city's new surveillance adjudicator arrived for his first day at work yesterday.
Mr Justice Woo Kwok-hing pledged to thoroughly investigate any complaints to the statutory body, which was established by the controversial covert surveillance bill passed after a marathon special Legco session this month.
'Anybody can complain,' the Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance said. 'It is my job to see whether any surveillance was carried out, and if yes, to see if it was done in accordance with the law.
'If it was not, I have to notify the complainants and ask if they want to apply for compensation.'
But Mr Justice Woo said if a surveillance operation was carried out against the complainant but was done with proper authorisation, he would only be able to say the complaint was unsubstantiated, leaving the complainant in the dark as to whether he was the subject of surveillance. He said this was important to prevent any abuse of the system, and to avoid tipping off criminals.
'I cannot say much more than that,' he said. 'If I say more, that could be dangerous because criminals could abuse the system. I certainly cannot tell them they are being bugged, but it is in accordance with legal procedures.
'That would tip them off and they would find ways to circumvent the bugging. It would jeopardise police investigations.'
Establishment of the commission was widely criticised by the Civic Party and Democrat lawmakers for being too limited.
The proposed amendments of lawmakers Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee and James To Kun-sun to increase the commissioner's powers and make the commission a proactive investigatory body were defeated.
Mr Justice Woo said the regulatory regime put in place by the law had checks and balances and would ensure government snooping was carried out through proper procedures. He said the commission would be transparent in its work.
According to the law, all requests for phone tapping by law enforcement authorities must be authorised by a judge from a panel of three appointed last week.
Other forms of surveillance would have to be approved by either a judge or internally by a supervisor, depending on the level of intrusiveness.
Asked whether he was braced for controversy surrounding his position, Mr Justice Woo said that as a judge and the former head of the Electoral Affairs Commission, he was not new to sensitive issues.
In 2004, he was in the spotlight when ballot boxes for the Legislative Council elections were in short supply, sparking a public outcry.
He said the public expected the commission to help protect their privacy without jeopardising legitimate law enforcement work, and to investigate complaints.
'People do not want their privacy rights unduly affected, but they also want the government to protect our security,' he said.
