Privacy is for everyone, rich and poor
There has been a lot of news about the unauthorised building work on a senior official's home recently. But I am more concerned by the 10 cranes outside his house. I'm not going to discuss whether he was right or wrong, but the techniques of the reporters.
There is no doubt that the responsibility of reporters is to expose the truth to the public. This is an important job for society - but it doesn't cover the stalkerazzi.
Stalkerazzi always go too far, for example, waiting for a week to get a photo of a public figure. This is awful: remember what happened to Princess Diana? There is no need for public figures' privacy to be made public.
The government should stop the stalkerazzi's shameful behaviour; otherwise, public figures will have no life.
Everyone deserves privacy, whether they're poor or rich. What we need is news reporters, not news makers.
Ken Fung Chun-kit, King Ling College
From the Editor
Thank you for your letter, Ken. You touch on a very sensitive subject. While there is no question that people should have a right to privacy, the sentiment is different when we are dealing with public figures. For a long time the press has got away with all sorts of invasions of privacy under a very wide-ranging defence: 'the public's right to know.'
In light of the recent phone-hacking scandal, that 'right' has been brought into question. While the public certainly does not 'need to know' about the private life of a princess, it does have the right to know everything about the man who would be the new chief executive.
The press is the guard dog between the public and the power - i.e. those who have the money and or the ability to make decisions which affect our lives. The man who asks us to trust him with our money and our security lied to us.