Source: ST/ANN

Amendments made by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) to rules regarding National Registration Identity Cards (NRIC) will prohibit organisations from collecting, using, or disclosing their customers’ NRIC and other national identification numbers except in cases where it is required by law to do so, or if the situation necessitates full identification such as in cases of medical emergency.

In a press release yesterday (31 Aug), the PDPC announced that the new rules will be implemented to “enhance consumer protection”.

The PDPC has released advisory guidelines to “enhance consumer protection against indiscriminate and unjustified collection, use and disclosure of individuals’ NRIC numbers and retention of physical NRICs”.

The same guidelines will apply to “Birth Certificate numbers, Foreign Identity Numbers and Work Permit numbers”.

Customers can now choose to not provide their national identification upon purchasing movie tickets online, when signing up for retail membership, upon redemption of free parking, and even when entering secured buildings such as condominiums, where they can provide their partial NRIC numbers, up to the last three digits and checksum, and even so, organisations are required to comply with the Act’s Data Protection Provisions, in that the data must be reasonably secured and remain undisclosed.

PDPC suggested using alternative identifiers such as user-generated IDs, tracking numbers or organisation-issued QR codes.

In most cases, consumers may instead provide mobile phone numbers, email addresses, or other forms of identification.

However, the public sector is exempt from the new guidelines.

Situations in which the failure to properly identify an individual might result in significant harm, such as entering the premises of preschools and critical infrastructure buildings, are also exempt from the new guidelines.

To illustrate, members of the public are required to provide their national identification upon checking into a hotel, subscribing to a telephone line, attending a doctor’s appointment, and upon being hired at a new workplace.

Organisations that have collected NRIC numbers are urged to re-evaluate their need to continue storing the numbers. Should they not find any need to do so, organisations should dispose of the information responsibly and in line with disposal methods outlined by PDPC.

Should organisations choose to keep the national identification numbers in their records, they must take precautions to ensure there is sufficient protection of the data, and are even encouraged to anonymise the data.

The PDPC has issued a Technical Guide to complement the NRIC Advisory Guidelines, which will provide organisations with methods to replace national identification with other identifiers in their websites and other public frontline computer systems.

Organisations that fail to abide by the new guidelines by the stipulated date of enforcement will be deemed to have breached the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and may be subjected to penalties as laid out in the Act, which may include a fine of up to S$1 million.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Mr Low Thia Khiang’s Open Letter to Voters of Hougang and Aljunied GRC

The following is an excerpt of Mr Low’s letter. Dear Fellow Singaporeans…

PM Lee: His visit and reception in Washington DC

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is currently having an official visit to…

舆论:闭门会议谈话泄露– 本来无良誉 何惧损毁?

人权律师、前政治拘留者张素兰: 对于闭门会议谈话内容泄露,新加坡中华总商会会长黄山忠发表的声明把我逗乐了。信函中他担忧泄露事故会影响该会“崇高声誉”,也对有关偷录音会员的行为表达失望,事件恐影响部长和商会之间的信任。 请允许我在这里给会长先生一些安慰。 别担心被泄露的音频。私人会议上录音政府也常做,贵会会员的行为并不可耻。 其中一例,就是80年代,我在新加坡律师公会一项私人特别大会上发表的致词被未经许可录音。我的演说被秘密录音并逐字转载给当时的总理李光耀先生。1986年的律师专业法令修法,后者试图在国会特选委会听证会上诋毁我(尽管没有成功)。 所以会长先生,别担心。如果政府对待专业团体如律师公会,也可以表现如此卑劣,且在我看来前者比你的商会重要得多,我想贵会员泄露音频的行为相比下算是循规蹈矩了。 再者也不用对于贵会员可能拉低商会声誉感到遗憾。您和商会可能对贵会的“崇高声誉”过于自负。对我而言,贵会对于普通老百姓无所建树。实则贵会只对有钱有势者阿谀奉承。让我举例您如何让老百姓失望。 贵会有座富丽堂皇的礼堂,以贵会创始人暨知名慈善家和社运份子陈嘉庚命名。是开放予会员和民众租用的。 2015年,我代表我的协会–功能八号氏族会租用该礼堂,为陈嘉庚的外孙傅树介的著作《活在欺瞒年代》办推介活动。我付了510元抵押金。数日后我却被告知,贵会理事不让我租用,且没告知理由。 我立即写信给商会希望贵会重新考虑这不明智的决定。我把信件拷贝并电邮给所有有电邮邮址的理事。然而拥有“崇高声誉”的贵会却不屑回应和解释理由,为何不让贵会创办人外孙,在以其外公命名的大礼堂内办著作推介礼。 拜托会长先生,不用再去调查谁泄露陈振声部长的谈话内容啦。就我所知贵会也没有声誉。而且我知道,群众根本不在乎。 (译自原文:https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/02/20/dont-worry-about-damaged-reputation-from-the-leak-audio-recording-of-minister-chans-rant-for-you-have-no-reputation-to-begin-with/)