300 Hong Kong Cases [2008] 1 HKC Verdict does not indicate that the corresponding user information of the IP address belonged to the appellant or revealed the appellant’s identity. 64. First, as is evident from the Verdict, the information provided to the SSB only revealed that the address of the account holder was the address of a business, rather than an individual’s address. 65. Further, according to the sworn testimony of Mr Michael Callahan, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Yahoo! Inc, upon registration, users of email services provided by the Yahoo! websites would be asked to provide information such as name, gender birthday etc, but there was no guarantee that the information so provided was genuine as many users did not register with real information. 66. Thirdly, the user name of the Email Account registered with yahoo.com.cn was not the name of the appellant. 67. It is therefore the case that the Email Address, or the IP address, did not ex facie reveal the identity of the appellant. The information provided by Beijing Yahoo! only disclosed that the email was sent from a computer located at the address of a business entity, and the date and time of the transaction. Short of CCTV evidence, it would not be reasonably practicable from such information to ascertain that it was actually the appellant who used the computer identified by the IP address to send out the relevant email at the material time. It could have been anyone, as long as he had access to that computer (or had the necessary password if one was required at all). 68. According to the Verdict, the relevant email was sent under the alias of ‘198964’. Hence, the true identity of the appellant would not have been revealed in the contents of the email, either. 69. As mentioned above, there is no certainty that the registration information provided by an email user to the Yahoo! China website is authentic or reliable. The burden of proof rests with the appellant, as the complainant, to put forward credible evidence that such registration information held in the hands of the SSBV disclose his personal data. In the absence of such evidence, one cannot conclude that the registration information in relation to the Email Account necessarily contains personal data of the appellant. 70. In the light of the foregoing, we are of the view that although the information provided to the PRC authorities related indirectly to an individual, it was not such as would enable the identity of the appellant to be ascertained directly or indirectly with reasonable practicability. 71. Cinepoly involves a different factual matrix. In that case, the relevant personal information of the defendant subscribers was sought from internet service providers. Such internet service providers would be in possession of verified and hence more reliable personal information (for example, names, identity card numbers and addresses) of their subscribers. Accordingly, in the context of that case, the relevant IP addresses when A B C D E F G H I