ISE03/20-21

• The use of camera in vehicle compartment is increasingly popular as camera technology improves and becomes more affordable. It can be beneficial to resolving disputes and deterring crimes, but its use may also raise privacy concerns. While the use of outward-facing camera in vehicle is not free from contention,^{1Legend symbol denoting Some places like Luxembourg and Austria have reportedly banned the use of outward-facing in-vehicle camera because of privacy concerns.} the use of inward-facing camera that captures video in the vehicle compartment is considered to have more direct impacts on privacy. This is particularly so for taxi as passengers generally expect more privacy in a taxi-ride.
• In Hong Kong, inward-facing camera in taxi compartment (referred as taxi camera below) is neither mandated nor prohibited by law, though such use is broadly governed by the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) which sets out the responsibilities of data users in handling personal data. Despite this, taxi passenger footages were still occasionally found uploaded to the internet seemingly without the passengers' consent. Against this background, this issue of Essentials reviews the policy and guidelines on the installation and use of taxi camera in Hong Kong, with reference to Queensland of Australia and Singapore. Queensland has legislated to mandate taxi to install taxi camera, and enacted detailed camera guidelines and specifications to protect privacy, with cash penalty imposed on those violating the rules. In Singapore where taxi camera remains a voluntary fitting, similar privacy safeguards have also been put in place through issuing taxi camera guidelines which are also enforceable by law.

Use of camera in public transport in Hong Kong

• Many mass transport operators have installed cameras in bus or train compartments, though there is no legal requirement for it. Similarly, for taxi, neither the traffic-related laws nor the taxi licensing conditions require any camera fittings.^{2Legend symbol denoting The Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations (Cap. 374A) and Road Traffic (Safety Equipment) Regulations (Cap. 374F) have no requirement for camera in any public transport vehicles. Besides, while the taxi operating licence is granted on a perpetual basis, each taxi vehicle must renew its vehicle licence annually upon satisfying vehicle examination requirements at designated facilities. Those requirements are listed in the road traffic regulations.} Taxi operators also do not need to apply or seek approval from Transport Department or any other authorities to install and use camera, as long as the vehicle structure and driving safety are not affected.
• Taxi camera is considered a useful device in different ways. It can prevent or deter crimes, hence enhancing passenger and driver safety. The camera recording can also assist incident or accident investigation, and serve as evidence in legal proceedings, thus potentially speeding up the judicial process. In view of rising complaints from passengers,^{3Legend symbol denoting Only 20% of all 10 733 complaints about taxi driver malpractices were actually referred to the Police in 2018. About 68% of these complaint cases were withdrawn by the complainants, while 26% were found by the Police with insufficient evidence to further proceed. Some have therefore considered that taxi camera may be able to fill in some of the evidence gaps.} in 2016, a taxi industry body conducted a taxi camera trial in about 40 taxis and planned to install in 2 000 more in bid to improve taxi services.^{4Legend symbol denoting See SCMP (2016b).} The trial has drawn public controversy over privacy protection and it is unclear if the plan has been realized. Yet, some operators have chosen to install camera on their own. The taxi industry once estimated that at least 8 000 taxis had already been equipped with taxi cameras.

Privacy concerns over taxi camera in Hong Kong

• The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance is the law most relevant to the use of camera in public transport. The law requires personal data users to comply with the principles set out in the law over the collection, use, access, processing, storage and disposal of personal data. For example, personal data should be collected on a fully-informed basis, and use of data should be limited to or related to the original collection purpose. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data ("PCPD") has the power to launch an investigation when a complaint is received or there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a contravention to the principles.^{5Legend symbol denoting If there is a contravention, PCPD may serve an enforcement notice to direct the data user to remedy the contravention, and/or instigate a prosecution action. Failure to comply with the notice constitutes a criminal offence and the case may be referred to the Police for prosecution. A person who contravenes an enforcement notice will, on first conviction, be liable to a maximum penalty of a Level 5 fine (HK$50,000) and imprisonment for two years.} To assist the public in complying with the law, PCPD has issued a broad and general guidance known as "Guidance on CCTV Surveillance and Use of Drones", which covers but does not specifically target the taxi operators.
• While it is the choice of taxi operators or drivers to install taxi camera, PCPD has pointed out that the use of taxi camera to record images and sounds of passengers is by nature intrusive to privacy to a certain extent. Hence, PCPD advises that there should be detailed consideration and assessment on whether the installation is necessary for a lawful purpose (e.g. preventing crimes), and whether it is proportionate to the gravity of the prevailing problems (e.g. overcharging). Where camera installation is necessary, clear signage should be posted in the taxi, and drivers should also orally remind passengers of the installation.^{6Legend symbol denoting See Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (2017).}

Recent disclosures of taxi camera recordings

• Despite the presence of the privacy law and the CCTV guidelines as well as PCPD's advice, there have been several taxi camera recording disclosures in recent years, aggravating concern if there are sufficient privacy safeguards in place against the allegedly privacy intrusive acts. The use of taxi camera has also brought at least 17 complaints filed to PCPD between 1 January 2017 and 19 April 2019.
• According to PCPD, whether those acts have breached the privacy law depends on whether the video and/or audio recording is intended to or capable to identify the passenger, and whether the recording is used for a purpose, such as disclosure on the internet, beyond the original data collection purpose.^{7Legend symbol denoting See《回應傳媒查詢或報道：公署回應有關懷疑藝人在的士車廂被偷拍事件》(2019).} If the act in question falls outside the scope of the privacy law, but concerns with other infringement, other enforcement authorities would follow up. In 2016, a taxi driver who posted a breastfeeding passenger photo taken with his taxi camera/smartphone was arrested by the Police and was charged with the offence of "accessing a computer with a criminal or dishonest intent".^{8Legend symbol denoting After the arrest, the Privacy Commissioner did not comment on that specific case but issued a press release responding to media enquiries about the case. Among others, the press release stated that if the collection of personal data was intentional or capable to help identify an individual, it would constitute as collection of personal data under the privacy law, and be governed by this law. See《私隱專員回覆有關的士司機上載乘客在車廂內哺乳的照片到社交網站被拘捕事件》(2016) and SCMP (2016a).} The charge was however dropped after the Court of Final Appeal ruled in April 2019 that the offence was inapplicable to any case where one used his or her own computer/smartphone to access information.^{9Legend symbol denoting See Court of Final Appeal (2019) and RTHK (2019).}
• After the breastfeeding mother photo case, two passenger video footages were also found circulating on the internet in April 2019 and July 2020 respectively. Both clearly showed the passengers' faces which have allowed the public to identify them.^{10Legend symbol denoting The two footages showed the intimate behavior of the passengers. See《私隱專員回應有關藝人懷疑在的士車廂被偷拍事件》(2019) and 《公署回應傳媒有關網上流傳一段男女在的士親密的片段》(2020).} While PCPD has declined to comment on individual cases, it has called on the passengers involved to lodge a complaint. PCPD considered that without any complainant coming forward, it would not be practical to conduct a check of possibly thousands of taxis equipped with taxi camera.^{11Legend symbol denoting See《私隱專員回應有關藝人懷疑在的士車廂被偷拍事件》(2019) and 《回應傳媒查詢或報道：公署回應有關懷疑藝人在的士車廂被偷拍事件》(2019).} In view of growing privacy concern and in a bid to improve taxi services, the Transport Department has committed in 2018 to publishing a set of guidelines on voluntary installation of taxi camera, and PCPD has already been consulted on that. The guidelines scope has not been released yet.

Overseas policy and guidelines on taxi camera

• Generally, there is a growing trend internationally of employing taxi camera to improve driver and passenger safety, though the approach adopted and the level of details may differ from place to place.^{12Legend symbol denoting Many places have introduced their taxi camera programmes after serious crimes committed against taxi drivers. Some places such as Perth in Western Australia reported that attacks against drivers fell substantially by 60% a year after cameras were installed in taxis.} Some places, including all states of Australia, the city of Vancouver and Toronto in Canada, San Francisco in the United States, and New Zealand, have all mandated taxi camera installation and use. On the contrary, in England and Wales of the United Kingdom, an overwhelming majority of local authorities are still endorsing a voluntary approach.^{13Legend symbol denoting Having said that, some taxi drivers in Swindon who had behaved inappropriately were required to install taxi camera. See Swindon Advertisers (2019).} Likewise in Singapore, taxi camera has not been made a mandatory fitting. Regardless of their approaches, many of these places have set out detailed requirements on camera installation and use. The examples of Queensland and Singapore are examined below.

Key features of taxi camera policy in Queensland of Australia and Singapore

• Queensland introduced its mandatory "Taxi Camera Program" (known as Security Camera Program for Personalised Transport now) run by the Department of Transport and Main Roads ("DTMR") in 2005. The compulsory requirement is stipulated by law, which sets out the responsibilities of the taxi operators and drivers in the metropolitan areas in ensuring that the camera is properly fitted, fully operational and the recording is only accessed and used for authorised purposes. To ensure compliance by the taxi industry, DTMR has also published "Guidelines for Installation and Use of Personalised Transport Security Cameras", and "Personalised Transport Security Camera Specifications" which were reviewed in 2013 and 2017 respectively to take into account new developments and policy needs.
• In Singapore, the Personal Data Protection Commission issued in 2018 an "Advisory Guidelines on In-vehicle Recordings by Transport Service for Hire" to clarify the obligations of transport operators under the Personal Data Protection Act.^{14Legend symbol denoting See Personal Data Protection Commission (2018) and Land Transport Authority (2018).} Two months later, the Land Transport Authority ("LTA") further issued an "Installation guidelines for inward-facing in-vehicle recording devices for public service vehicles" (excluding buses), to complement the Personal Data Protection Commission's Advisory Guidelines. The LTA guidelines broadly spell out the installation and data management requirements. Since then, taxi operators must seek approval from LTA for installation and use of taxi camera.
• While Queensland and Singapore differ in its policy approach on taxi camera,^{15Legend symbol denoting The privacy protection regimes are however different between the two places. In Queensland, the state's personal data protection law (i.e. Information Privacy Act 2009) only applies to the state's public sector. At national level, the Privacy Act 1988 only extends to cover business with certain level of annual turnover or selected high-risk industries. In Singapore, the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 has no such application limit. Compared to Hong Kong's, Singapore's Personal Data Protection Commission also has power to impose fine on offenders violating relevant provisions in the privacy law.} the privacy safeguards put in place by them are broadly similar, with variations in specific details. Generally, taxi camera must be installed in a way which ensures that the camera system, operation and security meet the required standards and operating requirements, such as data encryption, making the system tamper-proof, etc. The key elements of a proper installation and use include the following:
  
  

  (a)	Authorised installation: In Queensland, DTMR maintains a list of approved camera suppliers meeting at least the minimum camera specifications. The camera installation must be performed by technicians recommended by the approved suppliers. In Singapore, LTA also appoints authorised installation centres but does not clearly specify the camera specifications. These centres are also responsible for periodic camera checks;
  (b)	Warning signage: In both places, taxi operators must affix signs notifying the passengers that they are under camera surveillance. In Queensland, fixed-sized signs must be affixed at all entry point and inside the taxi. If the camera is faulty, the taxi operator must inform DTMR and stick a notice to inform the passengers;
  (c)	Camera activation and recording format: In Queensland, the taxi camera system does not allow any person to turn it off or disable it in any way, while there is no such explicit requirement in Singapore.16Legend symbol denoting Whether the driver has control over the system is also a key concern in the taxi camera debate. While Queensland forbids manual switch off and Singapore is silent in its guidelines, some other places (e.g. some local authorities in England) have mandated that there should be a switch to turn camera off under the bonnet, considering that drivers may drive the vehicle for private use. Both places have also required that all visual camera recordings must be imprinted with the taxi's licence/registration number and a date and time stamp. In Queensland, even location data is required in the format;
  (d)	Audio recording: Both places have allowed audio recording in taxi, though they had prohibited it at the beginning because it was regarded as highly intrusive to privacy. Their policies were reversed on the consideration that the benefits of audio recording would usually outweigh the disbenefits.17Legend symbol denoting Audio recording is often considered more intrusive as it is capable to reveal more sensitive personal information about the passengers. The proposal to allow audio recording in Queensland had been strongly opposed by the Queensland Privacy Commissioner who considered the justification not substantiated by the government. Yet the government insisted that the change was necessary, citing a case of an alleged indecent treatment of an underage girl which could not be proved by a video footage without audio. Having said that, some places (e.g. New South Wales of Australia, and some local authorities in England and Wales) still have reservations on audio recording. For example, in the UK, its transport authority recommends that audio recording should only be activated with consent from the passengers and not by default. Both have required audio recordings to be encrypted as the same as the video recordings and automatically overwritten after a certain period. In Singapore, a LTA-commissioned poll had found strong public support for audio recording for protecting the interests of both passengers and drivers;
  (e)	Access and download: Both places impose restrictions on access to and download of camera recording to prevent data misuse. In Queensland, camera recording download must be performed by authorised officers at pre-approved download stations.18Legend symbol denoting Download officers and download station must be pre-approved by DTMR which will balance privacy considerations with the need for download facilities. Once a station is approved, the camera supplier will provide the download software. See Department of Transport and Main Roads (2018). Download requests must either come from the police or the station supervisor when a complaint or incident is reported to them. DTMR must also be notified in written form within one day after each download. Downloaded recordings must also be used for authorised purposes as prescribed by law, such as complaint examinations, and law enforcement related to offences about or in taxi. The restrictions put in place in Singapore are broadly the same. It is stated in the LTA guidelines that data access is restricted to "relevant government agencies" and "LTA-authorised data controller" (such as but not limited to the taxi companies), to "support investigations and enforcement efforts". In both places, detailed download records of must be properly kept;
  (f)	Recording retention period: Both places have set a time period of keeping the recordings in the camera system but their requirements are slightly different. In Queensland, DTMR requires a minimum period of 168 hours (seven days) and the oldest record should be overwritten automatically.19Legend symbol denoting In Queensland, the retention period had been changed from the initial maximum 32 hours to 72 hours in 2013. The requirement was later changed to minimum 168 hours (seven days) in 2017. Any request for camera recording download should be made no later than seven days. In Singapore, the LTA guidelines only specifies a maximum retention period of seven days. Queensland also specifies that all downloaded recordings will be retained for at least 60 days, but no longer than 90 days unless they are required for law enforcement purposes; and
  (g)	Enforcement and penalty: Regardless of whether taxi camera is a mandatory or voluntary fitting in taxi, both places impose penalties on breaching the camera installation or use requirements. In Queensland, DTMR is in charge of annual taxi inspection to ensure that the taxis comply with the legal standards, and DTMR also conducts regular audits of camera download stations. The Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2018 also sets out offences such as illegal data sale, installing and use of unapproved camera, unauthorised data access and download, etc., which may attract a maximum fine of up to A$10,676 (HK$58,000). In Singapore, although there is no specific provision covering taxi camera, the Road Traffic Act allows LTA to apply a fine of up to S$1,000 (HK$5,600) or three-month imprisonment for persons violating LTA rules relating to unauthorised camera installation and unauthorised access to the recording. If a taxi driver is involved, the driver may also be penalised with 21 demerit points or even have the driver licence revoked.

Concluding remarks

• The use of taxi camera has become more popular. The camera can provide a technological solution to enhancing driver and passenger safety, deterring crime and assisting crime investigation, and resolving disputes over taxi service and fare. In Hong Kong, the recent cases of taxi passenger footage disclosures have aggravated public concerns over whether the existing policy on taxi camera is adequate to protect passenger privacy.
• In overseas places, no matter whether a mandatory or voluntary approach of taxi camera is adopted, there are clearer policy and guidelines that aim to ensure there are sufficient privacy safeguards to prevent mishandling of camera recordings. In this regard, the Queensland authorities have made legislation, and published detailed camera specifications and guidelines covering the handling as well as access and download of the taxi camera recordings. In Singapore, while camera installation is not mandatory, similar aspects are covered in the LTA guidelines. Any violation of the camera guidelines like unauthorised access to camera recording is a punishable offence.

Prepared by CHEUNG Chi-fai
Research Office
Information Services Division
Legislative Council Secretariat
22 October 2020