On CE election day, two laptops containing 3.7m voters’ personal data were “stolen.” The laptops were behind a “locked door” which required a passcode and access card to enter. Given the security arrangement, police detectives suspect that it was an inside job. Our legislator “experts” are now at awe why all 3.7m voters’ personal information were contained in the laptops, when only 1,194 electors were eligible to vote in the CE election.
Who’s the idiot who called the cops?
That’s my question. There’s no sign of breaking in. Someone with access to the passcode and access card took the laptops. Let me guess. Who would have the resources, and why was the Government trying to cover it up? The answer is clear. I’m guessing some low-level civil servant didn’t get the memo and panicked when he couldn’t found the laptops. He freaked out and reported the “theft” without informing his supervisor. Now it’s too late for cover up.
Or maybe he wasn’t an idiot but hated his boss
Maybe the civil servant wanted to expose the “truth” to the public. To avoid the PR blunder, the very same people could have simply requested the Government for the data. As John Tsang says, “Your boss is always right.” If God can ask Carrie run for CE, God can ask the Government to hand over the data. CY Leung will surely comply now that he’s an important state leader with national responsibilities. Spare me the drama, please.
Now we have to pay a further HK$5m for an “apology”
To add insult to injury, the Government is now sending out “apology letters” to all of us. Talk about rubbing salt in our wounds. The letters will cost taxpayers HK$5m. Let’s assume there will be 3.7m letters. Since Hong Kong Post is a Government department, there shouldn’t be any postage fees. So, I’m guessing that most of the HK$5m will be the cost of paper. Who’s this contractor selling the Government paper for HK$1.35 per sheet? I want a piece.
Government lawyers are now frantically trying to advise their bosses what they can do to “fix” this. But really, there’s nothing they can do. Since the Government has labelled this a “theft” of personal data, it’s desperately trying to find ways to justify what had happened. But this can be easily resolved if the “theft” is recategorised as “authorised transfer of data.” The Government can even point to the relevant Basic Law provision allowing them to do so. Problem solved, and you’re welcome.