or controlled within Hong Kong, effective enforcement action by the local oversight authority is precluded. This is no doubt why ' other countries not subject to this territory s constitutional limitations have legislated in terms that ensure that effective enforcement remains feasible. 18.6 A few examples will suffice to indicate some of the main approaches taken by other countries in determining the territorial of their data protection laws. The French law fixes legal liability on users involved in even the partial processing ofpersonal data (eg collection) within France. If the processing is carried out by a foreign data user's agent (eg a computer bureau), that agent must be identified in the declaration as the foreign data user's representative and as such is subject to the law. This ensures that legal redress is always available against someone present within the country. 18.7 The UK law focuses not on whether processing takes place within that country, but on whether control over such data is exercised within the UK. This may result in a broader territorial sweep to the UK law as compared with its French counterpart, insofar as the law applies such control is exercised notwithstanding that the processing is carried out elsewhere. As regards computer bureaus, however, the factor is whether the processing is carried out in the UK. 18.8 A further variant is provided by the Netherlands law, whose territorial scope is primarily determined by whether the file is 32