關於 個人資料私隱條例七年 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

香港今日社論2021年06月16日(100蚊獅子頭)
https://youtu.be/nmZ1i9s4w1A

請各網友支持巴打台
巴打台購物網址
https://badatoy.com/shop/
巴打台Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/badatoyhk/
巴打台Youtube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmc27Xd9EBFnc2QsayzA12g
---------------------------------
明報社評
政府刊憲修訂《電影檢查條例》的檢查員指引，訂明影片如有可能構成危害國安的罪行，應評定為不宜上映，任何影片亦不應包含可能煽動或干犯《港區國安法》罪行的內容。業界擔心指引模糊易墮法網，政府表示會跟業界多溝通多解釋。回看歷史，電影出於政治原因不得上映，並非沒有例子，以往相對少見，某程度與政治社會氣氛有關，然而反修例風暴改變了一切，香港已無法回到從前，權力當局要「執正來做」，以往放任寬鬆氣氛不復再，打擦邊球風險必然增加，這就是眼前政治現實。

蘋果頭條
感染英國變種COVID-19的天水圍3母女，感染源頭成謎，父親仍未確診。專家袁國勇視察3人曾到訪地方後，認為最先確診的17歲少女最可能被他人傳染，但亦不排除經動物或進口冷藏食物傳染。政府驗出患者雪櫃的泰國急凍鱷魚排骨包裝表面帶有COVID-19。不過醫生指，若包裝內層或其他手部不會接觸的位置沒有病毒，則意味經患者接觸後殘留的機會較高，而非該食物本身受病毒污染。「樓上」燕窩莊周二（15日）晚在官方facebook發帖，承認涉事鱷魚排骨屬於該公司產品。

東方正論
誨淫誨盜、案底纍纍的壹傳媒又添醜陋一筆。只餘網站吊命的《壹週刊》，涉違法取得藝人張栢芝第3名兒子的出世紙資料並公開刊登，遭當局票控「披露未經資料使用者同意而取得的個人資料」，成為檢控部門首次引用相關條例控告的報刊。無奈判決仍不脫高高舉起、輕輕放下的慣例，3名被告僅被輕判罰款，涉案記者甚至獲撤控。《私隱條例》淪為無牙老虎，壹傳媒繼續搞風搞雨，孰令致之？

星島社論
今日掛牌的時代天使（6699），昨日暗盤勁升一倍，富途暗盤收報三百六十八元，若在該位沽出，一手帳面可賺三萬九千元，為第二名歷來一手賺錢最多的新股，僅次於一九九七年北京控股（392）。不過，時代天使一股難求，投資者要認購十五萬股或七百五十手，才能穩奪一手，須斥資二千六百二十一萬元，一手中籤率僅得百分之一點五。市場人士表示，若時代天使的股價跌穿暗盤低位三百二十元，持貨者可考慮沽出。

經濟社評
美國總統拜登對中國祭出連環拳，由美國牽頭的北約組織首次視中國為「系統性挑戰」，但遣詞用字始終審慎，仍將俄羅斯列為最大威脅。無論拜登能否克服國內圍繞軍費的阻力，兼拉攏更多盟友軍事圍堵中國，中方都要小心應對，既要提升軍費透明度免招口實，更要避免捲入軍事競賽。美國80丶90年代就利用軍事競賽，拖垮蘇聯。北約公報過去僅2019年曾在時任美國總統特朗普施壓下提及中國1次，但最新的篇幅大增，聲稱中方大擴核武、軍事現代化信息不透明，以及與俄羅斯軍事合作等，為規例為本的國際秩序帶來系統性挑戰。
#AI #人工智能 #報紙 #社論 #明報 #蘋果 #東方 #星島 #經濟日報 #新聞 #每日新聞 #香港 #香港新聞 #epoch #times #hk #epochtimes #ntd #習近平 #爆料 #一國兩制 #林鄭 #直播 #香港直播 #香港人 #hk #hongkongnews #hklive #hongkong #隔離區 #新聞記者 #警員 #無可疑 #網友 #領事館 #中美關係 #中美冷戰

【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》－ 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】

(Please scroll down for English version.)

近日，各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議，舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制，更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所，民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今，政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由，企圖向校方施壓，大興文字獄，大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。

在中大校園內，有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律，只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異，校方便指鹿為馬，無理指控其內容違法，圖以法律之名打壓言論自由，更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會，直接指派保安人員拆下橫額，完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調，《基本法》性質類近憲法，而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力，政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此，政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名，禁止學生討論香港獨立。

其後，中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而，校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生，反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧，有違教育者之原則，再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。

除此以外，早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世，教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」，更指若該二人不是教大學生，則「放他上網」。翌日，相關閉路電視截圖流出，實在令人髮指。的確，大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當，然而，冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策，當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育，蔡若蓮為其一一護航，年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩，最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩，實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論，卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥，更有機會違反《個人資料（私隱）條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌，他日有學生批評校長，會否亦遭受類似報復？大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖，並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。

《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由，我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重，而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申，言論自由是天賦人權，是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況，堅守我們的自由與權利。

二零一七年九月十日

香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會

In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.

In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.

Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.

Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.

Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.

10 September 2017

City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong

【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》－ 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】

(Please scroll down for English version.)

近日，各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議，舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制，更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所，民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今，政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由，企圖向校方施壓，大興文字獄，大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。

在中大校園內，有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律，只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異，校方便指鹿為馬，無理指控其內容違法，圖以法律之名打壓言論自由，更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會，直接指派保安人員拆下橫額，完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調，《基本法》性質類近憲法，而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力，政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此，政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名，禁止學生討論香港獨立。

其後，中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而，校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生，反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧，有違教育者之原則，再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。

除此以外，早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世，教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」，更指若該二人不是教大學生，則「放他上網」。翌日，相關閉路電視截圖流出，實在令人髮指。的確，大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當，然而，冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策，當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育，蔡若蓮為其一一護航，年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩，最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩，實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論，卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥，更有機會違反《個人資料（私隱）條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌，他日有學生批評校長，會否亦遭受類似報復？大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖，並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。

《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由，我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重，而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申，言論自由是天賦人權，是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況，堅守我們的自由與權利。

二零一七年九月十日

香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會

In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.

In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.

Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.

Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.

Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.

10 September 2017

City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong

香港今日社論2021年06月16日(100蚊獅子頭)
https://youtu.be/nmZ1i9s4w1A

請各網友支持巴打台
巴打台購物網址
https://badatoy.com/shop/
巴打台Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/badatoyhk/
巴打台Youtube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmc27Xd9EBFnc2QsayzA12g
---------------------------------
明報社評
政府刊憲修訂《電影檢查條例》的檢查員指引，訂明影片如有可能構成危害國安的罪行，應評定為不宜上映，任何影片亦不應包含可能煽動或干犯《港區國安法》罪行的內容。業界擔心指引模糊易墮法網，政府表示會跟業界多溝通多解釋。回看歷史，電影出於政治原因不得上映，並非沒有例子，以往相對少見，某程度與政治社會氣氛有關，然而反修例風暴改變了一切，香港已無法回到從前，權力當局要「執正來做」，以往放任寬鬆氣氛不復再，打擦邊球風險必然增加，這就是眼前政治現實。

蘋果頭條
感染英國變種COVID-19的天水圍3母女，感染源頭成謎，父親仍未確診。專家袁國勇視察3人曾到訪地方後，認為最先確診的17歲少女最可能被他人傳染，但亦不排除經動物或進口冷藏食物傳染。政府驗出患者雪櫃的泰國急凍鱷魚排骨包裝表面帶有COVID-19。不過醫生指，若包裝內層或其他手部不會接觸的位置沒有病毒，則意味經患者接觸後殘留的機會較高，而非該食物本身受病毒污染。「樓上」燕窩莊周二（15日）晚在官方facebook發帖，承認涉事鱷魚排骨屬於該公司產品。

東方正論
誨淫誨盜、案底纍纍的壹傳媒又添醜陋一筆。只餘網站吊命的《壹週刊》，涉違法取得藝人張栢芝第3名兒子的出世紙資料並公開刊登，遭當局票控「披露未經資料使用者同意而取得的個人資料」，成為檢控部門首次引用相關條例控告的報刊。無奈判決仍不脫高高舉起、輕輕放下的慣例，3名被告僅被輕判罰款，涉案記者甚至獲撤控。《私隱條例》淪為無牙老虎，壹傳媒繼續搞風搞雨，孰令致之？

星島社論
今日掛牌的時代天使（6699），昨日暗盤勁升一倍，富途暗盤收報三百六十八元，若在該位沽出，一手帳面可賺三萬九千元，為第二名歷來一手賺錢最多的新股，僅次於一九九七年北京控股（392）。不過，時代天使一股難求，投資者要認購十五萬股或七百五十手，才能穩奪一手，須斥資二千六百二十一萬元，一手中籤率僅得百分之一點五。市場人士表示，若時代天使的股價跌穿暗盤低位三百二十元，持貨者可考慮沽出。

經濟社評
美國總統拜登對中國祭出連環拳，由美國牽頭的北約組織首次視中國為「系統性挑戰」，但遣詞用字始終審慎，仍將俄羅斯列為最大威脅。無論拜登能否克服國內圍繞軍費的阻力，兼拉攏更多盟友軍事圍堵中國，中方都要小心應對，既要提升軍費透明度免招口實，更要避免捲入軍事競賽。美國80丶90年代就利用軍事競賽，拖垮蘇聯。北約公報過去僅2019年曾在時任美國總統特朗普施壓下提及中國1次，但最新的篇幅大增，聲稱中方大擴核武、軍事現代化信息不透明，以及與俄羅斯軍事合作等，為規例為本的國際秩序帶來系統性挑戰。