Dread as Hong Kong courtuvre disclosure of police account information

Hong Kong’s High Court issued the injunction on Friday, after the police force sought its intervention to halt “doxxing” – the publication of private information online – by pro-democracy protesters. 

Hong Kong would finally be in its fifth month amongst protests, which have plunged this particular into its biggest political economic crisis in decades Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters

The right court in  Hong Kong  has banned people from disclosing a wide range of personal information about police officers and their families, including names and photos, prompting concern from journalists and legal experts.

The semi-autonomous Chinese territory has been gripped by protests for nearly five months, with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets to denounce what they see as Beijing’s creeping interference in Hong Kong. China denies the claim.  

Some rallies have got turned violent, with protesters setting fire to apartment complexes and vandalising businesses hailed being pro-China.   Police have responded with  tear gaseous element, water cannon, rubber bullets and occasional live rounds to disperse crowds.

A handful of activists attacked police utilizing petrol bombs and is great, furious at social media photos of random beatings, individual one against protesters cowering on the floor of a subway work.

One officer this month would be slashed in the neck by using a knife.

Amid some unrest, t this individual police and justice secretary applied on Friday for a exclude on disclosing names, details, email addresses, telephone numbers alongside details, including children’s schooling addresses.

They also sought a ban referring to publishing details about a law enforcement agency officer’s Facebook and Instagram IDs, their car cell phone number plates and any photos of an officer or that family without consent.

Finally the court agreed to a temporary invest in, which will last for 14 days might be a longer legal hearing.

The injunction includes broad ban on “intimidating, molesting, harassing, threatening, harrassing or interfering” with any one police officer or family member.

The current wording finds no exceptions, including to suit media, making it unclear the best way it will be applied and or otherwise it will restrict work to reporters.

Arm of the law did not respond to requests just for clarification.


Antony Dapiran, a lawyer, described the limit as a “very alarming development”.

“A sincere restriction on freedom because of expression and effectively criminalises a whole range of perfectly authorized acts which will now be punishable as contempt of trial, ” he wrote entirely on Twitter.

One particular Hong Kong Journalists Association alleged it was “extremely concerned” upon the potential limitations to to become freedoms and said previously it was seeking legal advice.

Lecturer Simon Young, of the School of Hong Kong’s legal requirements school, told Reuters a news flash agency the move comfortably amounted to a law emphasizing a select group – a heavy move which should be dealt with because of new legislation, not an injunction.

“It opens a whole latest can of worms and as a consequence questions about enforcement, alone he said. “It is due to the dysfunction of the legal process that injunctions are being used in this way. ”

Sharron Fast, some sort of media law expert in conjunction with the University of Hong Kong, claimed the injunction banned adventure “far beyond doxxing”.

“It would certainly capture the chants and name-calling that the police have lengthy wanted to have legislative protection from, ” she told AFP news agency.

She added that press and opposition figures owned also been “doxxed” during the protests but the injunction did not increase extra protections to them.

Police said in August more than 1, 600 police officers and their family members had been victimised by doxxing.

“They perhaps suffered all sorts of harassment, together with nuisance calls, verbal intimidation and even death threats, in Police Public Relations branch Major Superintendent Tse Chun-chung known at the time.

“Some people misused our officers’ personal detail to apply for loans. ”

Earlier in may, the city’s pro-Beijing patron Carrie Lam used a fabulous colonial-era emergency law within order to ban protesters from decorating face masks.

But the ordinance was highly flouted by protesters incensed that police are still are generally cover their faces.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *