Hongkongers should not worry that their privacy will be invaded, as there are very strict rules governing the interception of communications, the commissioner of the Interception of Communications and Surveillance stressed yesterday.

Justice Woo Kwok-king made those remarks at an informal meeting with the Legislative Council (LegCo)'s Panel on Security. Woo explained the content of the first security report he issued following the communication-and-surveillance law's passage in August of 2006.

His report spanned from the passage to the end of 2006. It was given to the chief executive in mid-2007, and the LegCo's Panel on Security received a copy late last year.

The panel has since discussed the report several times.

There are double protections in the law, Woo said. Apart from panel judges who authorize law enforcement agencies to carry out interception and surveillance activities, his commission checks whether the authorization procedure and subsequent execution are in order.

Any law enforcement officers who make unauthorized wiretaps are subject to disciplinary action and may lose their jobs.

However, he admitted the current ordinance limits interception and surveillance activities by only law enforcers. In the event of unauthorized interceptions and surveillance activities by other people or groups, the Common Law will be applied to determine if the act constitutes a criminal offence or constitutes a privacy violation.

Citing judicial independence, Woo had declined to attend the LegCo panel's regular meetings. So, yesterday's meeting took place at a "neutral venue", being the Information Services Department.

Led by panel Chairman Lau Kong-wah, three lawmakers attended the meeting together, as did their committee secretary and legal advisor, while officials from the Security Bureau were also present.

At the meeting, legislators expressed dissatisfaction toward a particular case, in which a law officer tapped the wrong telephone number for several days. Then, the department in question was unable to determine the cause of the mistake, and it couldn't identify the victim to apologize or offer compensation.

Addressing the concerns, Woo said the mistake in question was reported to him by the concerned department.

He said it might have been the result of numerical error, adding that he was initially unhappy that law enforcement could not determine the cause.

Pursuing the case, he checked the paperwork, questioned the involved officers and visited the telecommunications service company to see how interceptions are conducted.

In the end, he was satisfied that the law agency did its best to find out what had happened.

"I can't tell you anymore, and you will have to use your imagination," he told the panel members. "I will disclose their operation procedure if I do. Even the staff of the telecommunication company who handle the interception work may not know what they are exactly doing. They may think they are simply carrying out normal tests or maintenance services."

(HK Edition 01/19/2008 page1)