Comprehensively reviewing the provision on 'access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent' under the Crimes Ordinance （2015/02/05)

MR YIU SI-WING: President, the Internet is nolonger the virtual world perceived at its birth, but an extension of the realworld. One is closely related to such an important public space, wherever oneis and whatever sector one is engaged in. Internet crimes shall be governed bylaw as in the real world. For example, provision of sexual services throughonline arrangements may be in violation of various legal provisions. While onlinearrangements serve as a medium, provision of sexual services violates sectionCrimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) "Living on earnings of prostitution of others”and the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for 10 years. Mr. CharlesPeter MOK proposed in his original motion to amend the provision on “access tocomputer with criminal or dishonest intent" to make it applicable only tocomputer frauds, such an amendment is hardly meaningful. As seen in many cases,such prosecutions were not based solely on section 161, but were brought undera number of existing ordinances. Therefore, it is clearly unreasonable todenounce section 161 as a draconian law. 
 
President, in the face of the ever-changing cyber world,legislation against cybercrimes in Hong Kong is limited and fails to keepabreast of the changes in web behavior. Many unlawful acts in the gruyere arebeyond the Government's control. As in the cases mentioned by Dr Elizabeth QUATin her amendment, apart from criminal cases involving fraud or hacking, otheracts such as cross-border electronic-commerce, cross-border on line shopping,invasion of personal privacy and cyber bullying are not covered by law. Victimshave no means of redress. 
 
Information containing pornography and violence, endangeringnational security, and inciting racial and religious hatred or discriminationhave been clearly defined as harmful by legislation in many countries aroundthe world. Germany is the first country in the world to enact cybercrimelegislation. South Korea has imposed stricter criminal sanctions against cyberdefamation. On 29 March 2011, a bakery owner was convicted of defamation bySeoul Central District Court for spreading rumours about his competitor online, and was sentenced to 18 months'imprisonment. 
 
Many states in the United States have legislation on cyberbullying, such as New York State's Dignity for All Students Act, and Florida State'slaw against cyber bullying. Clearly, democratic and civilized countriesregulate cyber speeches by law. The aim is not to limit freedom of speech, butto create a cleaner cyberspace, promote basic Internet ethics, avoidirresponsible speeches that are detrimental to the interests of the public, andimpose different penalties for spreading improper speeches on the Internet. Thephenomenon of cyber bullying (commonly known as “cyber-profiling") alsoexists in Hong Kong. Data subjects attacked by a group of web users suffer froma great deal of mental stress, and may even commit suicide. Ms Claudia MO'samendment described section 161 as being used by the Administration to suppressfreedom of the press and freedom of speech. I believe that obviously, no comparisonshould be drawn between the two, as cyber speeches with criminal intent, orthose inciting or abetting others to commit unlawful acts or criminal damageand invade others' privacy, clearly go beyond the realm of freedom of speech. 
 
In addition, with the prevalence of online transactions,geographical boundaries have been broken down by the globalization andvirtualization of cyberspace, which provides a cross-region and cross-border space for criminals. For example, manyconsumers have complained about hotels booked online, which they described asinconsistent with the specifications and significantly different from thepictures on the web. Some consumers were even cheated to stay in love hotels. Yet,cross-boundary enforcement against overseas booking agents is not permittedunder the existing legislation in Hong Kong. Victims thus have no means ofredress and compensation. 
 
In this connection, various governments around the world andinternational organizations have, in recent years, actively enacted relevantlegislation and signed relevant conventions, and taken international jointactions to combat cybercrime, maintain cyber-security and safeguard allinterests. As early as 2001, 30 countries including the European Union memberstates, the United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa signed the Conventionon Cybercrime. One of the aims of the Convention is to provide a commonreference for international legislation on cyber-crime. Another aim is tosupport signatory countries' cyber-crime detection and investigation with aninternational convention for greater international co-operation. 
 
Hong Kong should also change with the needs of the time.Existing legislation should be reviewed to clarify the responsibility andconsequences of web behavior. Besides, international co-operation should beenhanced to facilitate joint imposition of penalties to combat cross-boundarycrimes, resulting in better legislation and greater protection to bothconsumers and victims. 
 
President, I so submit, I support Dr Elizabeth QUAT'samendment, but oppose the original motion and Ms Claudia MO's amendment.