The advantages of the electronic age have been trumpeted long and hard. Yet in the rush to embrace new technology, how many of us have stopped to consider to whose advantage this is? Yun Fan Lai asks whether we have been too hasty in allowing technology into our lives.

Manufacturing engineer Richard Fan Tin-chi says that he cannot live without his computer and the Internet.

The 30-year-old starts his working day at 9:00am by turning on his desktop computer in the office. After replying to e-mails from different companies and business associates, he then reads newspapers on the Web, checks the price of his stock, and an hour later, when the markets open, he surfs the web for about an hour for information for his toy business.

His connection with the Internet doesn't stop after his work finishes at 6:00pm. After dinner, he surfs the Net again, browses shopping websites, plays interactive games online, and chats with his girlfriend in Japan through the ICQ message system.

Richard's time spent online, while considerable, is by no means unusual. Yet by doing so, he has already exposed himself to many different kinds of surveillance. His personal e-mails, as well as those of his colleagues, are routinely monitored at the office, while the commercial websites that he visits will track his activities, compiling a personal profile that will include his interests, concerns and how many purchases he makes online.

Richard says that he is aware that his privacy might be intruded upon through his activities on the Internet, but he says that there is no alternative "This is already part of my life. How can I change it?" he asks.

As a matter of fact, most people are probably already aware that this kind of surveillance takes place. Perhaps more troubling is the fact that it only represents the tip of the iceberg, and that surveillance generally, into all aspects of our private and work lives, is on the rise.

The latest survey released by Hong Kong's Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data shows that 64 percent of the nearly 500 companies in Hong Kong polled, said they had installed some type of workplace surveillance. Nearly half had installed closed circuit TV, whilst 27 percent used computer surveillance equipment for purposes such as examining emails. Twenty-two percent of firms monitored employees' phone conversations and a similar number watched their Web browsing.

Other forms of tracking also exist in the city. A person can be tracked by the trail of financial transactions he or she makes through ATM machines and using credit cards. Telecommunications technologies such as calling-line-display, real time call tracing and signal tracking, can also follow the movement of fixed line and mobile phone users.

The electronic road pricing system, a program to alleviate urban traffic congestion, which is being considered by many countries including Hong Kong, could well become another form of tracking. While the system records data related to a vehicle's movement in and out of a designated zone for billing purposes, such movement information could also be of use to unrelated parties, from law enforcement agencies and market researchers, to kidnappers and terrorists.

Dr Wong Kam-chow, an assistant professor in the Department of Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, says that people should have a better awareness of the risks to their privacy through using a computer. He says it is commonly believed that the computer is a secure place, off-limits to others.

"People use it to talk to close friends, share intimate ideas, conduct sensitive business and store personal information. One clear example is when people exchange email, or use the ICQ instant messaging system; they are more relaxed, informal and candid than when using other forms of communication,” he says. "Assured of privacy and emboldened by anonymity, people drop their guard and communicate uninhibitedly. If such information were made available to surveillance, our most private selves would be exposed."

Dr. Wong, a former police officer, points out that a computer "remembers" things long after most people have forgotten them. Whereas physical objects, such as documents, can be easily hidden or destroyed, it is not so simple with electronic data. For instance, when people delete a file it does not really mean that the file is destroyed. The deleted data can often be recovered. Also, the computer may have automatically placed the deleted file in a back-up storage area.

Computers also keep track of our daily routines. Their audit trails and logs contain information about who has accessed the computer, when, where and for how long. They record who has modified a file and what that modification is. They also indicate when and by whom files were downloaded to a particular location, copied, printed or purged.

"In essence, these offer a minute-by-minute account of what we are doing, every time we use the computer. It tells law enforcement officers whom we talk to, what we watch, even how we think. It is not too far-fetched to say that the computer offers inquisitive law enforcement officials instant and intimate profiles of who we are,” he said.

Dr. Wong says that before the computer, there was no one central database of all our routine activities and communications. Now there is, through the advent of e-commerce and email. "Previously, people shared their thoughts with only a select few, and not many people were in a position to observe them, now the computer gathers all the information about us in one place.”

According to Dr Wong, as e-commerce becomes more common and email more indispensable, our lives begin increasingly to centre on the computer. "It diligently builds a personal profile on us and becomes a type of diary to be shared by the first law official who wants to discover our innermost secrets," he says. "Also, a computer can store an enormous amount of information and offers an economical and efficient way to process and exchange this simply," he says.

The risk of surveillance and intrusion to privacy is definitely on the rise. The Government says it has already replaced static identity cards with smart cards. The result is a multi-purpose smart card, which will eventually incorporate driving licenses, electronic cash, bank accounts and even health insurance details.

Mr. Lau Ka-men, the Privacy Commissioner, says that this raises particular security issues, because of the serious consequences of having such a card stolen. "Such a card will be very convenient. With just one card, people can have access to all government information and services. But with so much information concentrated on one card, there would be incentives for some to use the data for other purposes."

The Commissioner stresses that the Government must take appropriate measures to minimise the impact on privacy intrusion, and his office has been in close contact with the relevant authorities over the card's usage. He says that the Government must ensure that the system is open and transparent for users. For example, kiosks should be set up where people can verify what data is stored on their cards. The Government should also seek the prior consent of citizens before placing anything more than basic identity card information on the new electronic documents. "People should have a choice and they should have the right to refuse."

The Commissioner has not dispelled "big brother" fears, as the Government could theoretically access a vast amount of personal data for crime prevention or other purposes. He says a code of practice on how information is used within government will also be needed, to prevent departments and agencies drawing on unnecessary information.

Mr. Lau says his office has expressed serious concerns over surveillance in the workplace and that it will draft a guideline next year to regulate such activities. He says that a balance has to be achieved between business interests and the individual's rights. "Nobody wants to be monitored 24-hours-aday,” he stresses.

The Commissioner also says that the office is considering tighter controls on Hong Kong based websites that collect personal data by asking visitors to register with them. He says these sites should inform users on the type of personal data they collect, why they collect it and how they protect customer privacy.

However, Law Yuk-kai, director of the Human Rights Monitor, is skeptical about whether the commission's efforts could successfully protect an individual's privacy. He says the commission could only regulate intrusion from the private sector, but that it might not be able to stop potential abuse of power from the Government.

He cites the example that the authorities, under the Telecommunication Ordinance, have the power to tap telephone calls and intercept and detain electronic messages under reasons of public interest. Mr. Law says that without strong and effective scrutiny, such power could conceivably be abused.

"For example, there is an information wing under the police but the public knows very little about its function and work nature," he says. Mr. Law says his group has repeatedly requested figures on police surveillance, but the authorities for security reasons have turned them all down.

"I really don't know whether there is a Big Brother watching at us,” he says. "I cannot say for sure that the Government does not have a file about everybody in its system. All we can do is to be a bit careful when releasing personal data to others.”