Internet censorship in Hong Kong

"Section 161: Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) which was enacted in 1993 before the widespread use the Internet and the growth of e-commerce generally, provides that it is an offence to obtain access to a computer:

• with an intent to commit an offence;
• with a dishonest intent to deceive;
• with a view to gain for oneself or another;
• or with a dishonest intent to cause loss to another.

Conviction upon indictment of any of these offences carries a maximum punishment of five years.[4]

Section 27A of the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap 106) enacted in 2000 provides that "any person who, by telecommunications, knowingly causes a computer to perform any function to obtain unauthorized access to any program or data held in a computer commits an offense and is liable on conviction to a fine of HK$20000".[5]

Pursuant to the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap 390), it is an offence to publish an obscene article. Publication covers distribution, circulation, selling, hiring, giving, or lending the obscene article. Distribution by e-mail falls within the definition of distribution, as does the placing of an obscene article on a website. Distribution does not require any element of financial gain. The definition includes "anything consisting of or containing material to be read or looked at or both read and looked at, any sound recording, and any film, video-tape, disc, or other record of a picture or pictures". An article will be considered obscene if, by reason by its obscenity, "it is not suitable to be published to any person". Obscenity includes "violence, depravity, and repulsiveness". The penalty for this offence is up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to HK$1,000,000.[6]

It is an offence to possess, produce, copy, import, or export pornography involving a child under 18 years of age, or to publish or cause to be published any advertisement that conveys or is likely to be understood as conveying the message that any person has published, publishes, or intends to publish any child pornography. The penalty for creation, publication, or advertisement of child pornography is eight years’ imprisonment, while possession carries a penalty of five years’ imprisonment.[2]

The Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) provides the legal framework for copyright protection in Hong Kong.[7] In April 2011 the government introduced the Copyright (Amendments) Bill 2011 that, if passed, will introduce (i) a new technology-neutral exclusive right for copyright owners to communicate their works through any mode of electronic transmission, with criminal sanctions against those who make unauthorised communication of copyright works to the public; (ii) safe harbour provisions for online service providers; and (iii) additional factors to consider by the courts when awarding additional damages for copyright infringement.[8]

There are complaints that the proposed amendments prohibiting unauthorised use of copyright material in any medium without permission threatens freedom of speech. The bill may negatively affect works of satire or parody on the Internet because there is no "fair-use exception". The government's position is that the amendments strengthen intellectual property rights. Some pan-democratic activists and supporters termed the bill an "Internet Article 23" (a reference to Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23, controversial anti-subversion measures the government proposed in 2002 that led to Hong Kong's largest-ever street demonstrations, the proposed article was withdrawn in September 2003).[2][9]

A wikipedia likes website HKChronicles has been blocked after 07JAN2021, reported by multiple major Hong Kong news channels. [10][11][12][13][14]

In March 1995, Royal Hong Kong Police raided all but one of the pioneering local Internet Service Providers (ISP) offering dialup service, confiscated their servers and records and shut them down for a week, blocking the access of 5000 to 8000 of Hong Kong's early Internet adopters.[17] The raids were thought to be instigated by Supernet, the one ISP not shut down, and coordinated by the Office of Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) working with the Commercial Crime Bureau (CCB) on the premise that the ISPs were operating without applying for a then-obscure Public Non-Exclusive Telecommunications Service (PNETS) Licence.[18] The companies shut down were Hong Kong Internet & Gateway Services (HKIGS) hk.net, Hong Kong Link InfoLink Ilink, Internet Online Hong Kong, Cybernet, Internet Connections, and Asia Online.

In January and February 2008, the Hong Kong Police Force arrested ten people who were accused of obtaining, uploading, or distributing pornographic images after Emperor Entertainment Group (EEG), a multi-billion entertainment company, filed a complaint about the availability of the photos on the Internet.[19] The images in question, which were explicit in nature, were of the Hong Kong actor Edison Chen engaging in sex acts with various women, several of whom were local actresses.[20] Chen admitted being the author and copyright owner of most of the photographs, and stated that the private photographs had been stolen and published illegally without his consent. A computer technician was convicted of three counts of obtaining access to a computer with dishonest intent, and received a custodial sentence of eight and a half months.[20]

The scandal shook the Hong Kong entertainment industry and received high-profile media attention locally and around the world. The police met with more than 200 people responsible for major Hong Kong websites and BBS communities to urge them to delete the pictures "as they have the responsibility to stop crimes". Related discussion threads were progressively deleted. The police ordered several locally registered web sites and BBS management firms to submit information about their clients, and had retrieved the IP addresses of more than 30 Internet users who allegedly posted photographs.[21] The police crackdown raised questions over violations of the privacy and free speech rights of Internet users and the selective application of the law.[22]