304 Hong Kong Cases [2008] 1 HKC 92. YHHK submitted that pursuant to the TOS, Yahoo! China might preserve and disclose a user’s account information and content if required to do so by local law. The PPS further provided that personal information might be provided to a third party pursuant to a court subpoena, law, regulation, or legal procedure. 93. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether the 2000 version or the 2007 version of the TOS applied, because the terms of the two versions were phrased somewhat differently, with the 2007 being more detailed. The appellant argued that as the appellant was a user of yahoo.com.cn service in 2004, the 2000 version should be applicable. 94. We are of the view that the effect of the relevant clauses in the two versions is largely the same. Both versions contain a provision that Yahoo! or Yahoo! China was authorised to make disclosure ‘in accordance with legal procedure’.8 95. On the basis of the materials before us, we agree with YHHK that the appellant had given his prescribed consent when he accepted the TOS and PPS of Yahoo! China. 96. We are unable to agree with the Commissioner’s view as expressed in the Report that compliance with statutory requirement on disclosure of personal data should be regarded as a use for a purpose consistent with the purpose of collection under DPP3. It seems to us that disclosure of personal information to public prosecution authorities could not be considered to be a ‘use’ of the information intended by the parties when the information was collected. 97. If there had been a contravention of DPP3, it is common ground between the Commissioner and the appellant that the exemption in s 58 of the Ordinance cannot be invoked in the present case. We accept that the crime committed by the appellant in the PRC did not amount to a crime under the laws of Hong Kong. Accordingly, it is not necessary to dwell upon the applicability of s 58 in the instant case. A B C D E F G J. RESULT 98. The information disclosed by Beijing Yahoo! on behalf of YHHK to the SSB cannot be regarded as ‘personal data’ under the definition of the Ordinance. The Commissioner was therefore right to conclude that there had not been any breach of the Ordinance on the part of YHHK. 99. Even if the relevant information were regarded as ‘personal data’, and even if YHHK were to be considered a ‘data user’, there has been no breach of DPP3 because the appellant had given prescribed consent for such disclosure. 8. Clause 7 of the 2000 TOS and cl 8 of the 2007 TOS. H I