[2008] 1 HKC A B C D E F G H Shi Tao v Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (Administrative Appeals Board) 297 44. Accordingly, the Commissioner concluded that the matter complained of fell outside the jurisdiction of the Ordinance. D4. No contravention of DPP3 45. Fourthly, even if the Ordinance applied to the disclosure complained of, the Commissioner concluded that there was no contravention of DPP3. 46. In this connection, the Commissioner took the view that it was ‘beyond doubt’ that no prescribed consent had been obtained from the appellant prior to the disclosure of the relevant information to the PRC authorities. 47. The Commissioner then turned to consider whether the disclosure fell within the original purpose of collection or its directly related purpose. 48. The Commissioner accepted as a matter of fact that users of Yahoo! China’s webmail service were required to accept the Terms of Service (TOS) and Privacy Policy Statement (PPS) prior to the use of their email accounts. The Commissioner found that the TOS and PPS expressly stated that YHHK5 might share information in response to subpoenas, court orders and legal process, and that Yahoo! China would act in accordance with local laws in retention and disclosure of information. 49. Thus the Commissioner concluded that compliance with statutory requirement on disclosure of personal data was regarded as ‘use’ for a purpose consistent with the purpose of collection, and was allowed under DPP3. As such, there was no contravention of DPP3. D5. Exemption in s 58 of the Ordinance not applicable 50. Finally, the Commissioner proceeded to consider whether s 58 of the Ordinance could be invoked so as to exempt or justify the disclosure in question from DPP3 for ‘the prevention or detection of crime’ or ‘the apprehension, prosecution or detention of offenders’. 51. After seeking independent legal advice, the Commissioner concluded that the words ‘crime’ or ‘offenders’ under ss 58(l)(a) and (b) of the Ordinance only applied to crime or offences under the laws of Hong Kong. Since the crime committed by the appellant in the PRC did not amount to a crime under the laws of Hong Kong, the Commissioner concluded that ss 58(1)(a) and (b) could not be invoked in the circumstances of this case. E. GROUNDS OF APPEAL I 52. The appellant in his Amended Notice of Appeal put forward four grounds of appeal: (1) The Commissioner erred in law in finding that the IP address of the subject internet account holder, disclosed together with the user 5. The TOS actually stated ‘Yahoo’ or ‘Yahoo! China’ rather than YHHK.