吹哨人被控起底

吹哨人與起底是沒有直接關係的, 很多人對鄭曦琳被捕反應很大, 我對於她實際做了甚麼不太掌握, 所以只能客觀地看此事。吹哨人一般干犯的罪行是披露機密資料, 而並非起底(doxxing)。

我引用明報的報導作本案的背景依據:

【明報專訊】由肝癌權威潘冬平女兒潘浠淳研發、奪多個本地和海外創科獎的人工智能（AI）網頁平台「藥倍安心」（Medisafe），去年6月捲入「請槍」爭議和侵犯病人私隱風波。在網上公開事件的鄭曦琳（小圖）周四（5日）涉觸犯《個人資料（私隱）條例》中的「起底」相關罪行被捕。鄭已獲准保釋，下月上旬向警方報到。相關控罪的免責辯護包括發表相關個人資料「符合公眾利益」。大律師潘展平稱，法庭需參考控辯雙方理據，才能判斷導致當事人或其家人蒙受傷害是否屬於被告的披露意圖。

有一點要弄清楚的是, 如果獲取當事人的個人及家庭資料是公開的訊息, 譬如某人穿着校服及由父母陪同, 或發佈的個人及家庭背景在公眾網域是可以找到的資料, 無形中等同自己同意可被人報導這些訊息, 就不能視為被起底。

「起底」罪可分為兩級(two tiers), 私隱專員公署的講法:

• The first tier offence is a summary offence for disclosing any personal data of a data subject without the relevant consent of the data subject, and the discloser has an intent to or is being reckless as to whether any specified harm would be, or would likely be, caused to the data subject or any family member of the data subject. Any person who commits the first tier doxxing offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine of HK$100,000 and to imprisonment for 2 years.
• The second tier offence is an indictable offence for disclosing any personal data of a data subject without the relevant consent of the data subject; the discloser has an intent to or is being reckless as to whether any specified harm would be, or would likely be, caused to the data subject or any family member of the data subject; and the disclosure causes any specified harm to the data subject or any family member of the data subject. Any person who commits the second tier doxxing offence is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of HK$1,000,000 and to imprisonment for 5 years.

第一級在裁判法院審理, 而第二級在區域法院審, 因為屬公訴控罪(indictable offence), 裁判官是沒權審的。第一級和第二級的分別在於第二級是需要證明實際蒙受「指明傷害」(specified harm), 而第一級沒有造成實際傷害, 只是"would be, would likely be"。「指明傷害」包括滋擾、騷擾、纏擾、威脅或恐嚇 (harassment, molestation, pestering, threat or intimidation )。

至於"符合公眾利益"的免責辯護恐怕未必用得着, 純吹哨揭露不當的事尚可以說為了公眾利益, 披露個人地址電話等有何公眾利益可言? 嚴格講這件事源起是質疑當事人沒有能力研發這程式, 而並非掌握及揭露秘密內幕, 所以連吹哨人也未必稱得上。單純提出質疑請槍是沒有問題的, 只要措詞謹慎, 不構成誹謗便可。起底的目的要掌握案情才能進一步評論, 正如明報報導Jackson Poon所講, 法庭要判斷被告的intent (including being reckless), 這方面大概被告不會向警察承認有意圖致當事人或其任何家人蒙受任何指明傷害, 法庭若推論有此意圖或 being reckless as to whether any specified harm would be, or would likely be, caused to the data subject or any family member of the data subject, 就可以把被告定罪。 不論定罪與否, 隨之而來的是民事索償。所以, 標少奉勸一眾窮光蛋, 訴訟不是窮等人家玩得起的, 所以在social media 發文, 可使人傾家蕩產的, 只靠正義感來得罪權貴你是玩不起的, 先前看到報導說小神童因此而休學, 我已心感不妙, 這是為民事索償打地基。說到底論事歸論事, 無需引發起底, 對誰都沒有好處。當然, 到了審訊可能捅出更多請槍方面的內幕。

我為鄭同學祈福, 得罪權貴的事應該交給標少這窮光蛋去做, 廢老食鹽多過你食米, 用迷宗拳無影腳, 太極生兩儀, 兩儀生四象…智慧化於混沌之中。