Ultraman

Another suspicious arguing/defending point: The CX staff said he/she was not the one who spread the video on the internet, yet couldn't deny he/she was the one who taped it.
Anyone came out and admit that he/she was the one who posted the video? If that staff lied, he/she was the one who taped and posted the video, is there anything wrong with his/her act?

tofu

"""Tofu, the woman got a case there because the film was shot by a Cathay employee"""
this is exactly what i mean, so it is only 唔尊重客人

"""It's like airforce flying on your private premises, which is allowed without asking for your permission of any kind. """"
Airforce does not need a permission to fly on my private property because I don't own the sky.  we only own the property up to certain height, not all over to the moon.  Airline only need to get permission from the gov't to fly over her country, not to get permission from each individual owner.

"""Some persons/professions have special authority to carry their duty in the public needless to acquire individual's consent."""
i believe you are taking CIA/FBI, not just a regular person, news reporter or photographer,
if the tv news showed how crowned is the night market and you see yourself  overthere, can you sue the tv station 侵犯私隱
if i shoot a pic at the qe park and post it on my blog, can any of the background persons sue me 侵犯私隱  i doubt it

it became an issue, because it was done by cx employee

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 19:52 發表
Airforce does not need a permission to fly on my private property because I don't own the sky.  we only own the property up to certain height, not all over to the moon.  Airline only need to get permission from the gov't to fly over her country, not to get permission from each individual owner.

You're not the only one. Many people don't know about this fact, if you own a real estate property (say a single house), actually you truly own the face area extends to the center of the earth, and up to as high as to the heaven! (you can go check it)
Airforce doesn't need to ask for your permission to fly over your house not because of the head room above is not belong to you (actually it does), because they have the special authority (as I mentioned).

i believe you are taking CIA/FBI, not just a regular person, news reporter or photographer,
if the tv news showed how crowned is the night market and you see yourself  overthere, can you sue the tv station 侵犯私隱
if i shoot a pic at the qe park and post it on my blog, can any of the background persons sue me 侵犯私隱  i doubt it

it became an issue, because it was done by cx employee

CIA and FBI have certain special authority, which official/press reporter/photographer have certain special authority too, although their authority is not the same kind.
Base on press reporting purpose, for example, if they want to 採訪/訪問 you in person, they have to get your permission so as to post your true face and voice and name on any of the media (don't you see some people being interviewed have their faces censored and voice treated and with a fake nick name?). However, the fact is, if at the time they videoing you (say on a busy street) they also recorded some bystanders walking at your back, their faces (no matter are clear or blurry) also being seen, there is no 侵犯私隱 involved.
And just want to let you know, no matter you believe/like it or not, laws were not established by me though.

tofu

"""You're not the only one. Many people don't know about this fact, if you own a real estate property (say a single house), actually you truly own the face area extends to the center of the earth, and up to as high as to the heaven!""""
I don't think so, otherwise, everyone  can ask the airline to pay for a fee.

"""Base on press reporting purpose, for example, if they want to 採訪/訪問 you in person, they have to get your permission so as to post your true face and voice and name on any of the media""""
if this is the case, all the suspects can just simply say no to the reporters rather than hide and run la.

"""don't you see some people being interviewed have their faces censored and voice treated and with a fake nick name?"""
this is just an special arrangement bet'n the two parties in order to protect the guest.

"""if at the time they videoing you (say on a busy street) they also recorded some bystanders walking at your back, their faces (no matter are clear or blurry) also being seen, there is no 侵犯私隱 involved."""
if this is the case, the cx staff can argue that s/he just recording his/her colleague, but the woman was running in front of the camera wor.

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 20:49 發表
"""You're not the only one. Many people don't know about this fact, if you own a real estate property (say a single house), actually you truly own the face area extends to the center of the earth, and ...

Very undeniably, the video camera was aiming and targeting the lady but not any other people, not even any other CX staff at all. If CX also think like you do, they can simply go talk to the judge, but I'm sure result is gonna be a lot worse.

For the fact I mentioned above, I need not to argue with you because I know that's the truth. Even I quote you any corresponding link or something, you just won't believe in what I said anyways. You are welcome to search it yourself and prove me wrong. But I can tell you, I can cut my head off in front of you if I'm wrong (I don't swear though).
After all, you can choose not to believe it, or not to find the truth yourself. Really not my business. If one day you'll get into any of those troubles, you'll realize anyways.

tofu

learn from your style.  if you can find a point to argue back, you will.  if not, you will just skip it.  kind of like mr. t.
i will believe it unless someone can show me why my example cannot go along with your theory.

but anyway, i just see this issue on yahoo.com  & fox news, seems like it becomes really big now.  

the fox reporter mentioned "there is no right of privacy in the middle of the airport.".  now, you can hear some professional options la, hope you can accept it, even though it is not the same as yours.


actually that woman only got free upgrade for one fright.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ ... 6978&ch=8033027

giginium

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-3-7 22:12 發表

Very undeniably, the video camera was aiming and targeting the lady but not any other people, not even any other CX staff at all. If CX also think like you do, they can simply go talk to the judge, b ...

really? I didn't know that if you owned land property that right also extended upwards and downwards. Can you show me a link? I'm really interested to find out just out of curiosity.

rainbow-davie

原帖由 giginium 於 2009-3-8 01:13 發表


really? I didn't know that if you owned land property that right also extended upwards and downwards. Can you show me a link? I'm really interested to find out just out of curiosity.

咁正? 突然我覺得交地稅交得好抵.  原來我同時擁有天堂同地嶽.

Manlau

Just out of curiosity, I have a few questions: 1) If a staff of CX got a stroke because of this woman abnormal behavior, can the staff sue this woman for negligence or some other reason? 2) If we own the sky above our house and the ground below it, how are we going to split the ownership for owners who live in a multi-storeys building such as apartment? 3) And do we have the right to mine under our house?

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 22:42 發表
learn from your style.  if you can find a point to argue back, you will.  if not, you will just skip it.  kind of like mr. t.
i will believe it unless someone can show me why my example cannot go alon ...

Did you hear that clearly?
One of the women (a US lawyer)said, the airline has rights to tape the lady but no rights to publish it. She also questioned the purpose of taping and publishing the video.
They also mentioned, they (CX) crossed the line for the video being published.
They also said, between the contract between the airline and the lady (customer), the lady should arrive at gate 30mins earlier. It's the lady's own responsibility for being late, that the airline won't need to compensate her for anything (legally). However, the video being published is not under a rightful/legal act, and that's why the lady got compensation from the airline.
And after all, they're giving comments under US laws.