Skip to main content

Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act 2017 - Supplying Personal Information

The Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act of Singapore was amended in 2017 to include new offences - This is one of them:
Supplying, etc., personal information obtained in contravention of certain provisions
8A.
—(1)  A person shall be guilty of an offence if the person, knowing or having reason to believe that any personal information about another person (being an individual) was obtained by an act done in contravention of section 3, 4, 5 or 6 —
(a)
obtains or retains the personal information; or
(b)
supplies, offers to supply, transmits or makes available, by any means the personal information.

(2)  It is not an offence under subsection (1)(a) if the person obtained or retained the personal information for a purpose other than —
(a)
for use in committing, or in facilitating the commission of, any offence under any written law; or
(b)
for supply, transmission or making available by any means for the personal information to be used in committing, or in facilitating the commission of, any offence under any written law.

(3)  It is not an offence under subsection (1)(b) if —
(a)
the person did the act for a purpose other than for the personal information to be used in committing, or in facilitating the commission of, any offence under any written law; and
(b)
the person did not know or have reason to believe that the personal information will be or is likely to be used to commit, or facilitate the commission of, any offence under any written law.
     Example 1.— A comes across a list of credit card numbers on the Internet belonging to individuals who are customers of B, which A has reason to believe were obtained by securing access without authority to B’s server. A downloads the list for the purpose of reporting the unauthorised access to B’s server to the police.
       A retains the list of credit card numbers and transmits it to B for the purpose of informing B of the unauthorised access to B’s server.
      A has downloaded and retained the list of credit card numbers for purposes other than those mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (b). Therefore A does not commit an offence under subsection (1)(a) by reason of subsection (2).
    A has transmitted the list to B for a purpose other than for it to be used in committing or in facilitating the commission of an offence. If A did not know or have reason to believe that the list so transmitted will be or is likely to be used to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence, then A does not commit an offence under subsection (1)(b) by reason of subsection (3).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Chapelton v Barry UDC (Exclusion Clauses)

Mr Chapelton went to a beach run by Barry UDC. See saw deckchairs. A notice next to them said,
"Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Hire of chairs 2d. per session of 3 hours ... tickets should be obtained from attendants."  He got two chairs from an attendant, paid the money and got two tickets. He put them in his pocket. On the ticket was written,
"Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair."  When he sat on the chair it gave way and he was injured. Would the exemption clause work? The Court of Appeal held that Barry UDC made an offer when the chairs were on display, Mr Chapelton accepted when he picked up the chairs from the defendant, and the ticket was merely a receipt of the contract, so the exclusion clause could not be incorporated as a term, because it was too late.

A Picture Speaks a Thousand Words to Show Lee Kuan Yew's Impact on Singapore Economy

He led the team that turned mudflats into a metropolis, but could one graphic describe the impact that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had on Singapore? This one from the Economist does a pretty good job of representing it.

The underlying philosophy of the Visual Law School site is that complex issues and concepts (such as the law and legal principles) can be made more understandable by showing them in a visual or graphical format. This infographic will not replace the reams of text and hours of eulogies that will mark the life and impact the Mr Lee had on our country. But it is a relatively fair and balanced window into the story that helps to put that impact into a global and historical perspective. Read the full article at The Economist
Rest in Peace, Mr Lee, we will always be grateful for what you did.

Lim Geok Hian v Lim Guan Chin (Misrepresentation)

Lim Geok Hian (brother) convinced his sister Lim Guan Chin to sign a contract that : if their father bequeathed the family home to either of them, they would share the home equally instead. Actually, Lim Geok Hian already knew that his father had written a will bequeathing the entire house to Lim Guan Chin. But he expressedly or impliedly represented to her that it was likely that he would inherit the house. When the father died, Lim Geok Hian tried to enforce the contract. The Court of Appeal affirmed that since his sister was induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation to sign the contract, it could be set aside