Of privacy and opacity
隐私与不透明

Hong Kong is making its financial markets less transparent

香港金融市场越发不透明

Mar 2nd 2013 | SHANGHAI |From the print edition “HONG KONG residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication.” So begins Article 27 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law. Those rights, ever delicate, are under attack. Just as troubling, so too is Hong Kong’s reputation as Asia’s most transparent financial market.

香港特区《基本法》第二十七条：“香港居民享有言论和新闻出版自由”。这些曾为美好的权利如今受到侵犯。同样让人感到不安的是，就连亚洲最为透明的金融市场-香港现也受到挑战。

As part of its effort to modernise the city’s corporate rule book, the government proposed last year that full Hong Kong identity-card (HKID) numbers and home addresses no longer be required of directors. The idea attracted little attention at first. But in recent weeks several Chinese corruption scandals have been exposed by newspapers relying on analysis of such data (mainlanders with ill-gotten gains often stash them in Hong Kong). That has led to a row over the trade-off between directors’ privacy and the public good.

为了让香港的企业规则现代化，去年，香港政府提出企业管理者不再需要提供香港身份证号码以及住址，这一想法刚开始并没有引起很多人的注意。但是在最近几周，新闻界根据资料分析（拥有不义之财的大陆人常把非法财产转移到香港）披露了中国的一些腐败丑闻。公司管理者的隐私和公众利益之间的利益权衡弄得满城风雨。

Many agree that home addresses need not be divulged: in Britain, for example, directors may provide a business address. But a surprising coalition now argues that the government must not obscure directors’ identity numbers. Since many local names are similar, the HKID serves as the only practical unique identifier available. Hiding several digits, as the government proposes, would make it hard to cross-reference databases to see executives’ cross-holdings or conflicts of interest.

很多人都认同家庭住址不应该泄露：例如，英国的企业管理者也许提供一个公司地址。但是让人惊讶的是，很多人一致觉得政府不得掩盖企业管理者的身份证号码。因为当地许多名字都差不多，香港特区的身份证是唯一实际可用的标识符。如果照政府提出的隐掉几位身份证号码的做法，交叉引用数据库很难了解到企业管理者的交叉持股信息或者利益纠纷。

Lee Chuek-yan, a trade-union leader and opposition legislator, cites examples of workers, who have been denied back pay by bosses professing bankruptcy, using identity numbers to track down other flourishing businesses owned by those same employers. Danny Lau of the Hong Kong Small and Medium Enterprises Association thinks only tycoons benefit from such secrecy: ordinary business people “benefit from more information because that means more trust”. Steve Vickers, a former senior police investigator, argues the reforms will make life easier for money-launderers and crooks.

工会领导人兼反对派立法者李卓人引用了工人的例子，一些公司老板自称破产而拒付拖欠工资，工人们利用这些老板的身份证号码查到他们拥有效益不错的公司。香港中小型企业联合会（主席）刘认为，企业大亨才是这种隐私特权的利益既得者：一般的商人从更多的信息中受益，因为这意味着公司更值得信赖。前姿势警方调查人员史蒂芬威克斯称，这些政策让洗钱者和诈骗者变得更加嚣张。

Conspiracy theorists have wondered if officials in Beijing, humiliated by exposés of corruption in the New York Times and elsewhere, have been putting the squeeze on Hong Kong’s government. In fact, these reforms were proposed before the recent scandals. Legitimate data-privacy issues arise, too. But the government has thrown away its chance of a fair hearing by attacking David Webb, a respected activist investor and online commentator.

阴谋论者怀疑，北京官员因纽约时报及其他国外新闻媒体曝光了其腐败事迹而蒙羞，于是向香港政府施加压力。事实上，这些改革政策在最近的丑闻曝光之前已被提出，隐私信息的立法提案也不断的发生。但是政府为了抵制魏大卫（一位德高望重的激进投资者兼网络评论者）取消了一场公平的听证会。

Troubled by the proposed reforms, Mr Webb published the sensitive directors’ data—all collated from public sources—on one convenient web page. Trouble came when the official privacy commissioner launched a “compliance check” on his publication, warning darkly that “misuse of personal data contained in public registers may be a contravention” of the data-privacy law. Mr Webb argues he is protected by Article 27; media outlets have rallied to his cause. But the legal cloud has forced him to take that page off his website. Mr Lee’s party will meet the government this month to try to halt the reforms, but his block lacks the votes to force a change. Jill Wong of King & Wood Mallesons, a law firm, believes directors should be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens but reckons the reforms are “likely to go through”. If so, Hong Kong will have scored an own goal.

因反感那些改革措施，魏大卫从公共资源上整理出企业管理者的敏感信息并刊登在一个便捷网站。他随后惹祸上身，政府保密委员对他刊登的内容进行一致性审查，并隐晦地警告：滥用公共注册中的个人身份证号码属于违法行为。魏称他的行为受到（香港基本法）第二十七条法律的保护，各界媒体也纷纷支持他的做法。但是迫于政府压力，他不得不删帖。李将在这个月于香港政府进行会谈，试图阻止这些改革措施，但是他的阵营获得支持不多而无能为力，“金杜万盛国际”律师事务所认为，企业管理者的标准应该比普通市民更高，但估计这项改革提案“通过的可能性很大”。如果真是这样的话，那香港真为自己摆了一道乌龙。