[2008] 1 HKC A B C D E F Shi Tao v Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (Administrative Appeals Board) 303 Ordinance.7 That section empowers the Commissioner to refuse to carry out or continue an investigation when the case has no connection with Hong Kong. It does not provide the answer as to whether the Ordinance may have extra- territorial application. 87. Mr Chang on behalf of the Commissioner argued that the Ordinance had no extra-territorial application. He relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v Rajah of Faridkote [1894] AC 670 to contend that in the absence of provisions in the Ordinance governing extra-territorial application, the general principle of territoriality applied. Accordingly, the Commissioner simply did not have jurisdiction over the appellant’s complaint. 88. In support of his submission, Mr Chang highlighted the following factual findings (amongst others) by the Commissioner: (1) The Email Account was subscribed by a PRC user, not a Hong Kong resident; (2) The Disclosure Order was issued to the business address of Yahoo! HK Holdings Ltd Beijing Representative Office in the PRC; (3) The Email Account information was collected by the yahoo.com.cn website in the PRC and disclosed to the SSB in the PRC, not in Hong Kong; and (4) The Yahoo! Hong Kong team has no access to the user database of Yahoo! China. 89. We have earlier explained why we consider that YHHK did have ‘control’ over the relevant information at the material time, and why YHHK was a ‘data user’ exercising control over the information ‘in or from Hong Kong’. In view of our conclusions on those issues, the Ordinance clearly applied to the instant case. It is therefore not necessary to come to any views on this interesting, but academic (for the purpose of this appeal) question. G I. GROUND FOUR: WHETHER DPP3 WAS CONTRAVENED H I 90. DPP3 provides that unless with the ‘prescribed consent’ of the data subject, personal data shall only be used for a purpose consistent with the original purpose of collection. 91. In the Report, the Commissioner came to the view that no prescribed consent had been obtained from the appellant prior to the disclosure of the information to the SSB. YHHK and Yahoo! Inc, however, contended that prescribed consent had been given by the appellant when he subscribed to the yahoo.com.cn mail service, thereby accepting the TOS and PPS in respect of that website. 7. The relevant provision in the Ordinance dealing with extra-territoriality appears to be s 33, which is not yet in operation.