Board logo

標題: 國泰向「機場阿嬸」道歉 [打印本頁]
作者: ravemother    時間: 2009-3-5 11:28     標題: 國泰向「機場阿嬸」道歉

【記者王智報道】
http://www.singpao.com/NewsArtic ... ID=4618&Lang=tc

YouTube網站上月出現一段熱爆全城的「機場阿嬸」短片，一名中年女士因為遲到無法登機而情緒失控，躺在地上打滾。據了解，「機場阿嬸」上周約見國泰航空人員，表示親友都有看短片，令她十分尷尬。國泰亦證實該段熱爆短片的「攝影師」是國泰的地勤人員，因此已對該員工進行紀律處分及警告，並且要向「機場阿嬸」致歉。

碌地被攝錄上網

        據悉，「機場阿嬸」是名經常往返本港與美國三藩市的國泰乘客，上月4日她與丈夫及一名友人，因遲到而無法登上CX782的航班，有人見她情緒失控，不動聲色地用手機拍下過程。

        「機場阿嬸」於上周約見國泰人員，但在整個會面過程中，她表現平靜，沒有提高聲線，亦沒有要求國泰賠償。而她獲國泰贈送不少飛哩數，最近她乘搭國泰航班，亦得到免費機位升級。

        事發一個月後，國泰航空發言人昨日表示，已證實拍片者是國泰的地勤員工，國泰並已向該名「攝影師」作出紀律處分及警告，又為短片令該女士尷尬而致歉。發言人表示，該短片其後由第三者上載到YouTube網站，強調該人並不是國泰的員工，公司事後亦提醒所有員工，要明白及尊重乘客的私隱權。

[youtube]BwBU8QIbZuY[/youtube]

[ 本帖最後由 ravemother 於 2009-3-5 11:29 編輯 ]
作者: 小叻    時間: 2009-3-5 11:30

益左阿嬸~
作者: its_visa    時間: 2009-3-5 11:55

i still want to know why da heck did she go THAT crazy by just missing a flight?
作者: 小叻    時間: 2009-3-5 11:59     標題: 回復 3# 的帖子

I think she did this because she dun want to pay extra money to board another flight.. she didnt show up at the time of entrance mah.. it's her fault... i think she worries what CX wont do anything for her and ask her to buy another tkt.
作者: kayllis    時間: 2009-3-5 12:04

i think the people who went with her is the most "mo loi"..=o=
unless they already know she's going to yell and roll on the floor..=P
作者: Catpiano    時間: 2009-3-5 12:17

Well .. that is a bad example ..

So .. from now on ..  more and more people will learn from that C9 ..   

Also, lots of security cameras in Airport anyway ...  if 該短片其後由第三者上載到YouTube網站，強調該人並不是國泰的員工 .. then nothing Cathy needs to do wor ...

How about those MTR stupid couple?? did they complain to MTR ??

I think loading those stupid people video on youtube is not an bad ideal ..   that may reduce those stupid thing happen ..
作者: Hyde    時間: 2009-3-5 12:18

原帖由 小叻 於 2009-3-5 12:59 發表
I think she did this because she dun want to pay extra money to board another flight.. she didnt show up at the time of entrance mah.. it's her fault... i think she worries what CX wont do anything fo ...


what if she got into some kind of accident that cause her to arrive late and had to make the flight to do something important to her?  maybe its the last chance to see her relative or something.  you never know
maybe you'd be just as upset as her if something like that happen to u
作者: Manlau    時間: 2009-3-5 12:18

No wonder airlines lose money!!
Although that staff should not post the clip without permission, it was that woman who is late for the fight and should be responsible. By giving her all the "extras" now, it means the airlines is encouraging people to do all kind of crazy things to get "JETSO". And of course, all other passengers are splitting that cost.
For that staff, he/she has every right to tape down the entire process. Why punish someone who record the truth, and trying to protect the integrity of the company, or even the society? If the woman knew that is embarrassing, she should not do it at all.
人必自侮， 然後人侮之！！
作者: 小叻    時間: 2009-3-5 12:29

原帖由 Hyde 於 5-3-2009 12:18 發表


what if she got into some kind of accident that cause her to arrive late and had to make the flight to do something important to her?  maybe its the last chance to see her relative or something.  yo ...


well at least she didn't say this to CX (for what i saw on youtube)..she is even complained to the other man saying that he is so stupid.. and not sit inside the plane and wait for her.. so that she can get in the plane even late...

If she has something urgent..that caused the delay..she can politely tell it to CX agents... I am sure CX staffs will help her
作者: fibbi    時間: 2009-3-5 12:29

I don't understand why Cathay needs to compensate her. She's the one with inappropriate behaviour in the beginning!
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-5 12:35

First, this case warn us we should behave ourselves well in the public.
Second, even the Cathy staff didn't tape this video, there might be any other bystander doing the same thing anyways, just can't trace him/her down jeh.
Conclusion, if we behave and act like any normal person, nobody is interest in spying us! Wakaka.....
作者: starbug    時間: 2009-3-5 13:43

.....又為短片令該女士尷尬而致歉。發言人表示，該短片其後由第三者上載到YouTube網站，強調該人並不是國泰的員工，公司事後亦提醒所有員工，要明白及尊重乘客的私隱權。

私隱?? 佢响公眾地方跳晒舞咁., 佢唔係expect 會冇人見到吓話?
作者: decane    時間: 2009-3-5 13:45

nothing wrong with the employee, everybody has the right to take pictures or video in public area
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-5 13:49

阿嬸做過咩我 no comment, 但係點解咁多人覺得唔應該向阿嬸道歉賠償? 個問題係有員工犯錯而影響一個客人聲譽, 道歉同賠償係好正常喎. 如果影野條友冇處分我怕下次比人影到響飛機上頭髮蓬鬆然後上youtubeo個個係你地咋. 國泰做得靚咪多d人搭佢地囉, 做生意正常不過啦

唔係事後孔明, 一睇個clip我已經覺得好唔妥點解會有個人響counter後面行出來用手機影個女人, 我覺得一d都唔好笑.
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-5 13:51

原帖由 decane 於 2009-3-5 13:45 發表
nothing wrong with the employee, everybody has the right to take pictures or video in public area


你知唔知有copyright同privacy架? 上工時間做私人野都得? 希望你老細唔知你係邊個
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-5 14:20

If people think the lady was over-reacting and being too annoying/disgusting in the public area, they could try to sue her (no idea if that is valid to make a sue).
As I said, any bystander may also feel funny to tape a video like that too, yet no one might able to trace him/her down, and thus no one would be dug out for blame or apology. However, the Cathy staff took that video while he/she was in duty, which meant doing personal stuff at work, plus doing a thing that was harming a customer's image/reputation. If you were the Cathy boss, would you think your staff was not doing a wrongful thing at all?

Seems like many people are confused with right and wrong value and moral standard nowadays. Maybe that's why the world is getting more messy.
作者: myversa    時間: 2009-3-5 14:28

The one owed her explanation was the one took the video, not Cathy.
作者: B2L2    時間: 2009-3-5 14:49

As long as the stuff is on duty, he/she is representation the company.  Just like all my messages posted on LYK from my company's computer, it all belongs to my company too.  Yes, the law could be push as far as that, depends on who want to push the limit.  I agree CX is doing that in a proper way.
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-3-5 14:58

原帖由 Hyde 於 2009-3-5 12:18 發表


what if she got into some kind of accident that cause her to arrive late and had to make the flight to do something important to her?  maybe its the last chance to see her relative or something.  yo ...


Actually agreeing this time...
I think people do dumb things all the time, includes you or me. Recording or laughing at other people's misfortune 唔見得比機場阿嬸 have class 得多.

Nothing new tho I must admit. 網上批鬥 is going to bring us all the way back to the dark side of human nature seen during the Cultural Revolution....
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-5 15:05

原帖由 myversa 於 2009-3-5 14:28 發表
The one owed her explanation was the one took the video, not Cathy.


Because the one who took the video was representing CX, the company has to apologize on behalf so that's making sense.
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-3-5 15:31

我覺得要立例管制囉。。。唔關事呢段片或者是否國泰員工。。。

有時我地出街咪又係要小心。。。郁下唔覺意比人影左D咩放上去﹐真係幾瘀呀

整整下無人敢出街。。。

再整整下連響屋企都驚比人裝針孔﹐真的好恐怖。。。

講返段片。。。其實若是真的趕不及兒子葬禮而有這舉止﹐絕對情有可原﹐不值得比人作為笑柄囉。。。可是人人若只是看一點點片段﹐咪以為她是傻婆﹐口誅筆伐﹐都算慘情。。。
作者: 老友四號    時間: 2009-3-5 15:36

發覺当今之世只要唔怕醜,肯当众發斕渣,则冇往而不利.因一切过錯都係人哋嘅;自己不過只係受害者而己！

就畫面所見 老夫 以為即使係在途中 亞嬸 遇上意外未能準時搭机,只能話係唔好彩！點都唔可以話係 國泰

嘅錯.但由於 亞嬸 縲地發爛渣 現在由錯變啱,既得贈送飛行哩数又可以免費升級.真係爽！: 所以下次如果

老夫 遲到,一於叫 四婆 扮演 机場亞嬸 咁就夫憑妻贵,實行唔使钱坐啇务位,真係唸起都開心!
作者: Catpiano    時間: 2009-3-5 15:52

Actually, there is nothing wrong .. if that is the CX staff who took the video ..  

Someone was 發斕渣 in his/her company, so it does make sense for him to record a video etc ..  so .. in case, his/her manager comes, and askes what happened ..  he/she can show the video.

Of course, If that CX staff is the one who post the video .. then that is his/her fault too.

Let's say ..  you work in a resturant etc ..  someone (ok, customer) come in, yell, jump, dance etc etc to annoy/disturb the resturant and other customers .. as a staff, you can record the incident.

I am not sure, if that is illegal if you yell, dance, jump etc in Airport area, just that I know if it happens in Vancouver .. you will be treated with TASER GUN !!!
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-3-5 16:12

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 16:36 發表
發覺当今之世只要唔怕醜,肯当众發斕渣,则冇往而不利.因一切过錯都係人哋嘅;自己不過只係受害者而己！

就畫面所見 老夫 以為即使係在途中 亞嬸 遇上意外未能準時搭机,只能話係唔好彩！點都唔可以話係 國泰

嘅錯.但由於  ...

唔得啦﹐四哥。。。第二次國泰唔會再 UPGRADE﹐可能 DOWNGRADE

一係你叫四婆做 D 其他新野喇﹐通知聲時間地點﹐我來扮偷拍
作者: siumaibb    時間: 2009-3-5 16:13

個亞嬸既行為叫老羞成怒，瘀過頭又無處宣洩咪搵Cathay出氣，講真，一個人可以晌公眾地方做出D咁既野都唔會自咩叫廉恥，Cathay怪就只好怪自己唔好彩

樓上話咩咩唔應該影，老實講，如果俾你見到D咁好笑既野，你返到屋企會唔會同老公講先？會唔會同朋友講先？同人講咪又係分享，不過唔同形色，呢個年代資訊發達，有畫面睇點都好過用口講。

我諗無人會知條片可以搞到咁大(連新聞都報導，係唔係記者懶搵料)，影果個亦都唔知會咁勁。不過歸緊究低，條片咁Hit都係因為亞嬸實在太"筍"，太搞笑，我覺得instead of搵Cathay，佢應該自己檢討下。
作者: siumaibb    時間: 2009-3-5 16:15

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 16:36 發表
發覺当今之世只要唔怕醜,肯当众發斕渣,则冇往而不利.因一切过錯都係人哋嘅;自己不過只係受害者而己！

就畫面所見 老夫 以為即使係在途中 亞嬸 遇上意外未能準時搭机,只能話係唔好彩！點都唔可以話係 國泰

嘅錯.但由於  ...


記得叫我地班 LYK 黎影 video
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-5 17:05

原帖由 siumaibb 於 2009-3-5 16:13 發表
個亞嬸既行為叫老羞成怒，瘀過頭又無處宣洩咪搵Cathay出氣，講真，一個人可以晌公眾地方做出D咁既野都唔會自咩叫廉恥，Cathay怪就只好怪自己唔好彩

樓上話咩咩唔應該影，老實講，如果俾你見到D咁好笑既野，你返到屋企會唔會同老公 ...


到你有日做到人老細，你要對內manage一班員工對外要tum班客戶你咪知點解CX要gum做囉。更何況你個人認為一個人冇廉恥就可以影人，小心他日有人認為你冇廉恥冇公德又影左你。

原來呢度gum多人既道德標準係同淫照案被告一樣gum低，世風日下

[ 本帖最後由 katamari 於 2009-3-5 17:12 編輯 ]
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-5 17:06

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 15:36 發表
發覺当今之世只要唔怕醜,肯当众發斕渣,则冇往而不利.因一切过錯都係人哋嘅;自己不過只係受害者而己！

就畫面所見 老夫 以為即使係在途中 亞嬸 遇上意外未能準時搭机,只能話係唔好彩！點都唔可以話係 國泰

嘅錯.但由於 亞嬸 縲地發爛渣 現在由錯變啱,既得贈送飛行哩数又可以免費升級.真係爽！: 所以下次如果

老夫 遲到,一於叫 四婆 扮演 机場亞嬸 咁就夫憑妻贵,實行唔使钱坐啇务位,真係唸起都開心!  

You didn't get it.
The lady could have received compensation from Cathy because the Cathy staff taped the video (which shouldn't have), not because of her 縲地發爛渣 or missed the plane.
Next time, be sure you'll do the same in the airport and I'll tape you and post on youtube. Surely, nothing you can get.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-5 17:17

原帖由 Catpiano 於 2009-3-5 15:52 發表
Actually, there is nothing wrong .. if that is the CX staff who took the video ..  

Someone was 發斕渣 in his/her company, so it does make sense for him to record a video etc ..  so .. in case, his/her manager comes, and askes what happened ..  he/she can show the video.

Of course, If that CX staff is the one who post the video .. then that is his/her fault too.

If the staff taped that video all because of making a valid evidence just in case his/her manager/supervisor/boss would ask about, or even to submit it as court evidence for further possible legal matters, then that's OK, and even smart. However, if it's intentionally made for personal interest, that's a problem. So, the fact was, did the staff hand over this tape to his/ber manager/supervisor/boss? But on the other hand, he/she didn't keep the tape privately and carefully or didn't delete it, and "someone" spread it over on the internet. Should that staff free from liability?
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-5 17:18

原帖由 Catpiano 於 2009-3-5 15:52 發表
Actually, there is nothing wrong .. if that is the CX staff who took the video ..  

Someone was 發斕渣 in his/her company, so it does make sense for him to record a video etc ..  so .. in case, his/h ...


實情個哥仔video人家居心何在都好明顯啦！巴士阿叔都叫做話「抱打不平」，係做證據就交條片比CX啦，你個assumption好多舊魚囉，更何況機場冇surveillance咩？自己本份都唔做第一時間就羅部電話拍片
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-5 17:45

原帖由 siumaibb 於 2009-3-5 16:13 發表
樓上話咩咩唔應該影，老實講，如果俾你見到D咁好笑既野，你返到屋企會唔會同老公講先？會唔會同朋友講先？同人講咪又係分享，不過唔同形色，呢個年代資訊發達，有畫面睇點都好過用口講。...

Back to the olden days (without internet yet), if 俾你見到D好笑既野, you may tell your husband when you get home; but would you phone all your uncles and aunties, schoolmates and friends and colleagues... etc one by one about that funny thing?
All because nowadays technology has been improving and developing a lot, almost everyone has a camera/camera-cell-phone and knows how to use internet, so people doing this kinda "mo liu" things just messing up the correct moral standard in the whole society. Really doesn't mean "the majority is doing this means right".
作者: 老友四號    時間: 2009-3-5 17:57

唉！E家D人真係公私不分濫用所謂私瘾權。如果亞嬸喺佢屋企發爛渣缧地，俾佢鄰居眏咗之

後放上網，咁就話侵犯私瘾啫。但Ｅ家成件事係發生係公众地方，咁點萛侵犯私瘾呀？如果咁

都係侵犯私瘾，咁Ｅ家喺温哥华開紧嘅机場电擊死亡事件.骑警咪可以控告提供Viedo個後生仔

侵犯骑警嘅私瘾,令到骑警Ｅ家咁冇癮曰日喺喥俾人 《傲》！呀！可能骑警D律師睇漏呢一點！

好！老夫 明日一於去提醒佢哋,話唔定佢哋為咗多謝我挽回佢哋嘅面子,送兩张国泰來回香港

温哥华嘅頭等机票俾 老夫& 四婆 以示感激！又一次諗起都開心！!!!!!!!!!
作者: zoids    時間: 2009-3-5 17:59

Well, although the obnoxious housewife was wrong and she embarrased herself at public, it WAS the Cathy employee who shot the video clips.... that clearly violated the privacy of clients.....

Cathy would not be at fault if the video clip was shot by a bypassing pedestrian.
作者: 老友四號    時間: 2009-3-5 18:23

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-3-5 18:06 發表

You didn't get it.
The lady could have received compensation from Cathy because the Cathy staff taped the video (which shouldn't have), not because of her 縲地發爛渣 or missed the plane.
Next time,  ...

與其怪責別人！為什么不拿出更大的勇氣來怪責自己.如果自己能尊重別人更尊重自己,在公众地

方能檢點自己控制自己,多點礼貌少點無理取鬧.事情總有平靜的解决方法,又可至於現在因醜態

百出而名揚国際呢！贵 閣下不妨照板煮碗在温哥华機場加航柜枱,上演同樣的一場好戲, 老夫

可保証閣下同樣可名揚国際,但亦保証閣下不會得到 机場亞嬸 的優待.有勇氣試試吗?
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-5 18:39

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 18:23 發表

與其怪責別人！為什么不拿出更大的勇氣來怪責自己.如果自己能尊重別人更尊重自己,在公众地

方能檢點自己控制自己,多點礼貌少點無理取鬧.事情總有平靜的解决方法,又可至於現在因醜態

百出而名揚国際呢！贵 閣下不妨照 ...


Ultraman冇講過阿嬸的行為係岩定錯，係好多人歪曲左，認為當阿嬸行為不當，員工用私人電話拍攝他人而再將他人的醜態私自放上網公諸同好係冇問題o者！
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-5 18:43

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 17:57 發表
唉！E家D人真係公私不分濫用所謂私瘾權。如果亞嬸喺佢屋企發爛渣缧地，俾佢鄰居眏咗之

後放上網，咁就話侵犯私瘾啫。但Ｅ家成件事係發生係公众地方，咁點萛侵犯私瘾呀？如果咁

都係侵犯私瘾，咁Ｅ家喺温哥华開紧嘅机場电擊死亡事件 ...

What did the lady harm the public? The most, we can say she was being annoying in a public area. Sharing the video on the internet is just for personal fun (or make fun to other people).
The video clip of cops using taser is a different story. Since a man has been killed by that, the public wants to know what had happened, and thus that video could be a valid and important evidence to the case. Which also prevents those cops wanted to cheat and lie. That's truly related to public concern. You don't see the difference?
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-5 18:45

原帖由 zoids 於 2009-3-5 17:59 發表
Well, although the obnoxious housewife was wrong and she embarrased herself at public, it WAS the Cathy employee who shot the video clips.... that clearly violated the privacy of clients.....

Cathy w ...


同意，相對講就算國泰係錯，員工都認錯，冇人話阿嬸係岩喎。更何況條友拍片時真係因為阿嬸做錯事而替天行道嗎？條片根本係有恥笑成分啦！
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-5 18:46

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 18:23 發表

與其怪責別人！為什么不拿出更大的勇氣來怪責自己.如果自己能尊重別人更尊重自己,在公众地

方能檢點自己控制自己,多點礼貌少點無理取鬧.事情總有平靜的解决方法,又可至於現在因醜態

百出而名揚国際呢！贵 閣下不妨照 ...

You probably forgot what you said, or you just want to avoid admitting your mistake.
You said the lady has compensation all because of her over-reacted action. I corrected you that it's because of Cathy counted as their staff's fault. You didn't wear your glasses or what?
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-5 18:48

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 18:23 發表

與其怪責別人！為什么不拿出更大的勇氣來怪責自己.如果自己能尊重別人更尊重自己,在公众地

方能檢點自己控制自己,多點礼貌少點無理取鬧.事情總有平靜的解决方法,又可至於現在因醜態

百出而名揚国際呢！贵 閣下不妨照 ...


錯曬呀！電槍條片係咪差老拍先？係咪差佬擺上youtube先？路人拍架！你少左上ＬＹＫ乜連logic都錯埋呀老四哥

[ 本帖最後由 katamari 於 2009-3-5 18:49 編輯 ]
作者: 老友四號    時間: 2009-3-5 20:41

咁請教兩位明理之人 机場亞嬸 嘅行為係啱定錯先？

老夫 则認为亞嬸錯在先,国泰 管理層錯在後,點解:因为佢哋立場軟弱,为咗息事寧人犧牲员工

將錯為啱.假如 老夫 係当日嘅 国泰 員工亦會眏低当日嘅情况,费事第日亞嬸投訴時口同鼻拗。

再者如果你哋有见過一D示威場面,你哋都會见到有警察眏VIEDO.如果照你哋所講佢哋咪喺喥浪費

時間同资源.因為1:不能作呈堂証物(因為警察眏警察及示威者).2:分分鐘俾示威者反告侵犯私瘾.

請問兩位D差佬明知冇用點解佢哋仲要眏呢？

再者 老夫 亦唔認同該国泰員工將該段影片上網是不当行為,(假定是該名員工所為)因為1:整件事

件發生在公眾地方.2:對方是成年人要為自已的行為負責及承擔後果.正如拍芝曰:打就企定.而且

該名員工並沒有加上任何主觀的意见,只是客觀的紀銾一切而已.
作者: 老友四號    時間: 2009-3-5 21:06

原帖由 katamari 於 2009-3-5 19:45 發表


同意，相對講就算國泰係錯，員工都認錯，冇人話阿嬸係岩喎。更何況條友拍片時真係因為阿嬸做錯事而替天行道嗎？條片根本係有恥笑成分啦！


员工認錯,唔代表佢真心認錯,因為如果佢唔認,分分鐘连份工都冇埋.(呢D又係強權勝過公義嘅明証哀哉！)

老夫 一D都唔覺得有恥笑成分喎(因為係百分百客觀纪录片),本來係十分嚴肅嘅反面教材

教導我哋成年人冇論男女有事慢慢講,總有解决嘅辦法.唔需要咁刁人現眼,醜態百出(一D都唔好笑).

但如今卻係變咗只要唔怕醜;夠爛就 YOU CAN GET WHAT U WANT !
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-5 21:39

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 20:41 發表
咁請教兩位明理之人 机場亞嬸 嘅行為係啱定錯先？

You really want to know right or wrong?
The lady getting mad in a public area (just screaming and lying on the floor) without physically hurting another, you can easily find it online if she was breaking any law or committing any illegal matter. As I said, you can seek for civil action if you like, yet I doubt what should you sue her.

老夫 则認为亞嬸錯在先,国泰 管理層錯在後,點解:因为佢哋立場軟弱,为咗息事寧人犧牲员工

將錯為啱.假如 老夫 係当日嘅 国泰 員工亦會眏低当日嘅情况,费事第日亞嬸投訴時口同鼻拗。

Can you find any staff handbook from any company that, the bosses allow their employees do personal affair (going to washroom kind of stuff is excluded) at work? The staff taping the video and didn't treat it as a official use but personal one, this action was not enough to charge him/her committed a crime and send to jail, but of course from the employer's POV, this action was not allowed at work duty and definitely not encouraged.
The apology and the compensation made was not only to please the lady (or media), but also gave a warning tone to all other staffs, let them know this kind of issues could be serious and warn them better not to do it again.

再者如果你哋有见過一D示威場面,你哋都會见到有警察眏VIEDO.如果照你哋所講佢哋咪喺喥浪費

時間同资源.因為1:不能作呈堂証物(因為警察眏警察及示威者).2:分分鐘俾示威者反告侵犯私瘾.

請問兩位D差佬明知冇用點解佢哋仲要眏呢？

再者 老夫 亦唔認同該国泰員工將該段影片上網是不当行為,(假定是該名員工所為)因為1:整件事

件發生在公眾地方.2:對方是成年人要為自已的行為負責及承擔後果.正如拍芝曰:打就企定.而且

該名員工並沒有加上任何主觀的意见,只是客觀的紀銾一切而已.

Did the cops who taped the video post them on youtube or any other public forum for personal use? Or do you know they're taping it for their own interest, or was ordered by their head government?
Moreover, such as official press persons have rights to photograph and video anythings and post them on official medias for press purpose, and yes, they don't need to get your agreement and they won't be charged.
You think the Cathy case was anything comparative to the above situations?
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-5 21:43

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 21:06 發表


但如今卻係變咗只要唔怕醜;夠爛就 YOU CAN GET WHAT U WANT !

Hello...? Did you read me? You still didn't get it right.
If the Cathy staff has not taped the video, Cathy wouldn't need to apologize and compensate the lady. NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU THINK!
Well, I'm not going to tell you again anyways. I'll let your brain stuck.
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-3-5 21:46

四號, 唔好花時間同Ultraman 糾纏喇, 佢係辯論既能手, 唔做律師既話真係浪費左佢天賦既才華.
作者: 大C姐    時間: 2009-3-5 21:52

老實講﹐she should be ashamed of herself﹐大庭廣眾影響其他旅客。大佬呀﹐係人都知機場呢D地方有camera啦﹐就算無人專登影﹐你都會有機會俾人拍底啦。

不過我又唔鼓勵D人成日坐車偷拍其他乘客放上youtube。

-- 近期大熱大C姐
作者: siumaibb    時間: 2009-3-5 22:09

如果影果個唔係國泰員工？如果條片無上新聞？如果亞嬸無去投訴？你又會點睇？
究竟你覺影人果個係侵犯私隱定唔尊重客人？你自己諗諗
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-3-5 23:32

Further thinking about this...
The Auntie scream and yell is not 'wrong' per say and doesn't affect anyone, nor cause anyone harm or damage.

HOWEVER
The fact that this was recorded and disbributed have caused suffering for this Auntie (massive public humiliation, including people who have laughed at her and called her names in this very thread), the Auntie can demand for compensation for the damaged cause and for the unnecassary pain that she has to endure.

The thing is, the intention of filming the video, or distributing the video, is irrelevant. They can be innocent with no intent to laugh at it, and just filming it for documentary reasons. However in reality, the act of filiming it was totally unnecassary (it's not really doing the world any better other than giving people a laugh... is it?), and because of this, this has caused unnecassary damage. It's just like you are driving on the road without intent to crash, but you crashed into someone else's car anyways. Since you are the person at fault, you are responsible for repaying the damage (via insurance premium hikes usually). Same thing.

With that, it's just a matter of whose responsible for her suffering and thus should also be repaying compensation for the damaged caused. It might be the one videoing it, it might be the one distributing it, it can be argued in many ways. However Cathay chose to represent for the person videoing it and take this responsibility for public relation reasons. Naturally then, Cathay would have to repaying the Auntie on behalf of the person videoing it. I think this is completely understandable.

[ 本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-3-5 23:37 編輯 ]
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-6 00:50

原帖由 大C姐 於 2009-3-5 21:52 發表
老實講﹐she should be ashamed of herself﹐大庭廣眾影響其他旅客。大佬呀﹐係人都知機場呢D地方有camera啦﹐就算無人專登影﹐你都會有機會俾人拍底啦。

不過我又唔鼓勵D人成日坐車偷拍其他乘客放上youtube。

-- 近期大熱大 ...


C姐我同意你的說法
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-6 00:51

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-3-5 21:46 發表
四號, 唔好花時間同Ultraman 糾纏喇, 佢係辯論既能手, 唔做律師既話真係浪費左佢天賦既才華.


你好鍾意做中間人架？條條thread都見到你喎，hi!
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-6 00:54

原帖由 siumaibb 於 2009-3-5 22:09 發表
如果影果個唔係國泰員工？如果條片無上新聞？如果亞嬸無去投訴？你又會點睇？
究竟你覺影人果個係侵犯私隱定唔尊重客人？你自己諗諗


都話到你有日做得到人老細你就明咯，你唔係高層的話唔明係冇問題架！
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-6 00:56

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-3-5 21:46 發表
四號, 唔好花時間同Ultraman 糾纏喇, 佢係辯論既能手, 唔做律師既話真係浪費左佢天賦既才華.

Did I tell you I am not a lawyer? But thanks to your compliment anyways.
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-3-6 00:59

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-3-6 00:56 發表

Did I tell you I am not a lawyer? But thanks to your compliment anyways.


超人平時比人封住個口講唔到野，唯有響ＬＹＫ狂打！Ultraman文武雙全，勁呀！
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-6 01:01

原帖由 katamari 於 2009-3-6 00:59 發表


超人平時比人封住個口講唔到野，唯有響ＬＹＫ狂打！Ultraman文武雙全，勁呀！

I'm a superhero with righteous and lawful knowledge! Wakakakaakaka...........
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-6 01:20

原帖由 siumaibb 於 2009-3-5 22:09 發表
如果影果個唔係國泰員工？

Then, no "breaking staff regulation" issue for a regular bystander.
如果條片無上新聞？

Less people would know about this.
如果亞嬸無去投訴？

If the person taping was not a staff of any company, probably the lady would have nowhere to complain. The alternative could be, report to police?
你又會點睇？
究竟你覺影人果個係侵犯私隱定唔尊重客人？你自己諗諗

A regular bystander would have 侵犯私隱, a company staff would have both 侵犯私隱 and 唔尊重客人.

For example, if you killed a man but nobody sees you and nobody knows that, of course no news and TV reports this too. But it doesn't mean you didn't kill that man.

That means, even the lady didn't make a complaint, the video hasn't been spread over on the internet, the news haven't been reported it, the person who taped the video already committed 侵犯私隱 (plus 唔尊重客人 for a company staff on duty).
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-3-6 02:34

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-3-6 17:01 發表

I'm a superhero with righteous and lawful knowledge! Wakakakaakaka...........


幾時要再去出動打怪獸then?
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-3-6 02:36

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-3-6 16:56 發表

Did I tell you I am not a lawyer? But thanks to your compliment anyways.


法官大人, objection! "唔做律師既話真係浪費左佢天賦既才華" 並冇指明Ultraman 是律師與否既含意.
作者: 老友四號    時間: 2009-3-6 03:35

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-3-6 02:01 發表

I'm a superhero with righteous and lawful knowledge! Wakakakaakaka...........


喂！律法超人 老夫 忽然靈光一閃；原來因为有人好似贵閣下咁熟悉法律，所以串謀做出

好戲，先而女主角發爛渣繼而航空公司员工錄眏全部過程，再放上網。女主角隨即向航空

公司投訢被侵犯私隐及不被尊重，因而提出要求賠償。如今一切都在佢哋計算之中而獲得

賠償，可憐我哋兩個儍佬卻抝到脸红脸绿，而毫冇着数！真係愈諗愈唔開心！唔知你有冇同

感呢？
作者: cinderelly    時間: 2009-3-6 23:53

this is so embarassing..
it's on yahoo's front page

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=12356979&ch=4226713&src=news
作者: mollinbaggio    時間: 2009-3-7 00:06     標題: 如果我係佢老公

如果我係佢老公,即刻兜巴星佢,仲係佢面前講粗口鬧佢問佢癲夠未,乘機話如果佢再嘈就同佢離婚.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-7 00:24

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-6 03:35 發表


原來因为有人好似贵閣下咁熟悉法律，所以串謀做出

好戲...

Just this statement without solid proof, you can be charged for defamation and have to give compensation for any damage, not necessary limited to physical but also spiritual.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-7 00:27

原帖由 mollinbaggio 於 2009-3-7 00:06 發表
如果我係佢老公,即刻兜巴星佢,仲係佢面前講粗口鬧佢問佢癲夠未,乘機話如果佢再嘈就同佢離婚.

If so, not only your wife has been taped as part I of the video; you could have been taped as part II. Kaka.....
作者: tofu    時間: 2009-3-7 00:50

yes-唔尊重客人
hm......侵犯私隱?!?

if you were filmed on a movie, tv show, news or etc when you are just walking on the street, can you sue them 侵犯私隱?

so many people are shooting pic on the street with ton of people at the background, can you sue the photographer 侵犯私隱?
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-7 01:07

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 00:50 發表
yes-唔尊重客人
hm......侵犯私隱?!?

if you were filmed on a movie, tv show, news or etc when you are just walking on the street, can you sue them 侵犯私隱?

so many people are shooting pic on the str ...

It's like airforce flying on your private premises, which is allowed without asking for your permission of any kind. Some persons/professions have special authority to carry their duty in the public needless to acquire individual's consent.  
However, none of the persons involved in the CX case has that kind of authority.
作者: MyOMy    時間: 2009-3-7 01:21

Tofu, the woman got a case there because the film was shot by a Cathay employee, she can sue Cathay for negligent.

Anyone other than the empolyees of Cathay shot the video should have been okay.   I beg the Cathay  management should have consulted their corporate lawyer and make the decision. A liitle price just to close the case legally, not that Cathay won't win the case.  

If this case goes to court.  In Hong Kong, 80% Cathay will win the case. In  In Canada, 20% Cathay will win the case (if she has not go to the extreme to theaten the RCMP with a stapler).   In States, there will be no case because she should have been throw into dentention immediately.
作者: spoonek4    時間: 2009-3-7 07:49

原帖由 katamari 於 2009-3-5 14:49 發表
阿嬸做過咩我 no comment, 但係點解咁多人覺得唔應該向阿嬸道歉賠償? 個問題係有員工犯錯而影響一個客人聲譽, 道歉同賠償係好正常喎. 如果影野條友冇處分我怕下次比人影到響飛機上頭髮蓬鬆然後上youtubeo個個係你地 ...


我覺得員工o係發生d 咁既野之下拎手機出黎影野留record 第時萬一有咩事既時候做證，無咩唔妥，即係好似你同人架車炒埋一碟你落車影相留record 差唔多。宜家太多人一味靠屈同靠賴.......

個員工冇迫個客咁做，亦都唔係個員工對個客有咩不敬﹖我明白宜家生意難做，留得一個客得一個客，但係身為係上級既都應該多方面睇下，有時唔一定個客岩晒！盞助長左某d人既氣焰
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-3-7 09:25

我終於好有耐性咁睇完個clips
都無咩呀.. 咁係人旁惶自責既時候都會失控.  

最抵死係佢罵佢老公: 你入一個人就俾兩個人入, 你入去先呀麻.邊有咁蠢...

好typical 香港人諗法.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-3-7 09:32

問題係, 如果個員工係當席時拍, 而佢拍黎係俾公司做record, 就無問題, 但如果係為自己一時高興, 就有違操守.  咁真係會影響公司形象.

如果佢落左班影既, 就無問題.

第二個問題係... 其實都唔關cathay 事,  就係套片既distribution 問題. 佢未徵求對方同意而拍及發放, 係可能引發私隱問題 ---- 辜問論個女人做過咩, 你 like or dislike her action.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-3-7 09:35

原帖由 MyOMy 於 2009-3-7 02:21 發表
Tofu, the woman got a case there because the film was shot by a Cathay employee, she can sue Cathay for negligent.

Anyone other than the empolyees of Cathay shot the video should have been okay.   I  ...


no. in Canada, 佢會死. 會有四五人個皇家騎警黎電死佢, 之後詁佢雙手拍檯咁有力,係weapon
作者: LOK    時間: 2009-3-7 10:47

原帖由 rainbow-davie 於 2009-3-7 10:35 發表


no. in Canada, 佢會死. 會有四五人個皇家騎警黎電死佢, 之後詁佢雙手拍檯咁有力,係weapon

TRUE!
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-3-7 10:50

原帖由 rainbow-davie 於 2009-3-7 10:35 發表


之後詁佢雙手拍檯咁有力,係weapon

作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-7 11:22

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?
作者: tofu    時間: 2009-3-7 19:52

"""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
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-7 20:25

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.
作者: tofu    時間: 2009-3-7 20:49

"""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.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-7 21:12

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.
作者: tofu    時間: 2009-3-7 22:42

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
作者: giginium    時間: 2009-3-8 00:13

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.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-3-8 01:20

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.
作者: Manlau    時間: 2009-3-8 05:35

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?
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-8 09:49

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.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-8 09:51

原帖由 giginium 於 2009-3-8 00:13 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.

Trust me, that's at Common Law in Canada.
I don't have an exact link on hand. But I think you can search it online as "land ownership", "real estate ownership", or "extent of land ownership"... etc. You might able to find it.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-8 10:05

原帖由 Manlau 於 2009-3-8 05:35 發表
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?

1) Yes, anyone can try to sue another with his/her own reason (doesn't necessary mean he/she will succeed at the end). In this case, the staff can seek for civil action only.
2) At Common Law, the "ownership" of the sky above and ground below is a legal (but abstract) concept. Practically, it has been modified that the land owner owns or has rights in the airspace above his/her property only to the extent that the land owner can make effective use of it. And for the ground below, Provincial Governments have reserved rights for the use of it.
3) First, it's about zoning. Second, whether it's for your own personal use or for commercial use (you can try to apply it). Third, the Provincial Government has rights to take your land if there are precious mineral, metals and/or petroleum underground, and in return to give you compensation.
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-3-8 15:04

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 01:50 發表
yes-唔尊重客人
hm......侵犯私隱?!?

if you were filmed on a movie, tv show, news or etc when you are just walking on the street, can you sue them 侵犯私隱?

so many people are shooting pic on the str ...

有可能
因此 电影公司會响当眼處 貼張告示出泥
話 如果你响呢度行过
有可能會被拍入鏡头內
如果唔想  請掉头走

[ 本帖最後由 sheep 於 2009-3-8 16:06 編輯 ]
作者: mcvities    時間: 2009-3-9 06:21

i too agree that the staff should never take the video in the first place. i'm sure he/she had violated some sort of 'code of conduct' on their staff manual. by allowing someone to broadcast it (with the intention to humiliate and broadcast a client's negative image), it's obviously a no-no in the service industry! how would u feel, if you phone telus to complain about something, and the call centre staff recorded your voice clip and broadcast it? i guess you might argue yelling over the phone is more acceptable than throwing a tantrum in the public. but to me, the staff is obviously not professional and inappropriate. they are supposed to protect a client's privacy. instead, they caused harm without knowing the background of the woman.
作者: tofu    時間: 2009-3-9 22:12

the whole case is all about 唔尊重客人.  nothing to deal with privacy, since it is the middle of the airport.  so there is no conflict between my statement and the fox new reporter.
the reporter also said there no legal responsibility for either the one who taped it or published it.  if the woman is going to sue either one, she won't win.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-3-9 23:05

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-9 22:12 發表
the whole case is all about 唔尊重客人.  nothing to deal with privacy, since it is the middle of the airport.  so there is no conflict between my statement and the fox new reporter.

Of course, if the one who filmed was not a CX staff but a "nobody bystander", probably no one can dig him/her out and thus no "唔尊重客人" would have occurred.
So called "there is no privacy in the middle of the airport" means, anyone inside the airport might be monitored by the airport for security reason anyways, but doesn't mean anyone can film or photograph any other one(s) and broadcast them without any concern and liability.

the reporter also said there no legal responsibility for either the one who taped it or published it.  if the woman is going to sue either one, she won't win.

Of course, there are "statute law" (public law) and "civil law". For example, you killed somebody, that is under statute law. And if you divorce, that is under civil law.
The case was not enough for the lady to sue CX for legal (statutory) liability, yet she may successfully sue CX for civil liability. However, sometimes civil matters could be more time consuming than legal matters (no concrete evidence and is much more debatable sometimes), and that's why some people would choose to have settlement outside court. Same as this case.



歡迎光臨 溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2