Letters | Is recording in Cathay Pacific discrimination scandal a violation of privacy? Unlikely, according to law
- Readers discuss the legality of the recording that led to the sacking of three flight attendants, and whether their punishment befits their offence
I am not giving legal advice or acting as anyone’s lawyer, but I can clarify some issues given my legal background.
Recordings, even if done in secret, are not strictly a violation of one’s right to privacy. One typically can rely on the right to privacy if there is an expectation of privacy. So, if someone breaks into your home and records you secretly, that would not be legal. Whatever they recorded probably can’t be used against you, in court or otherwise, and the person recording you would face some criminal penalties.
When you are in public, the issue of privacy becomes less certain. Three years ago, there was an explosion of the so-called “Karen” videos on social media – a meme referencing white women behaving badly – and many wondered if these violate privacy laws. In most cases they do not, because the public setting means that there is no expectation of privacy.
As for private conversations, it depends. In common law systems, we do not rely so much on strict written rules and instead often defer to legal standards of reasonableness. You see the word “reasonable” come up a lot in common law and Hong Kong is no exception.
The court must decide if privacy was a reasonable expectation. So, if you record a couple having dinner in a restaurant, or a business dealing in the corner of a bar, there is an argument to be made. How loud were they talking? What was the environment like? What were you doing at the time of the recording? All of these things matter.
These flight attendants probably have a tough case to make. Considering that they are on the job and speaking loud enough to be heard over the sound of jet engines and the goings-on in the plane, one could argue they should not have an expectation of privacy. They were working, supposed to be serving their customers, and Cathay Pacific probably has the right to enforce its workplace standards against them.
But let’s take this conversation out of the legal backdrop for one second. I would just like to state, as someone who has lived in the United States, that if this had happened in America, it would have spelled disaster. Lawsuits, public apologies, boycotts, it would have resulted in a firestorm.
It is not so unreasonable to think that Cathay Pacific would take this very seriously. Discrimination is a universal issue, not just a Hong Kong one.
Timothy Wong, Whampoa
Is being sacked a fitting punishment?
Based on the media reporting of the incident, no rudeness was shown to the passenger who mistakenly said carpet instead of blanket. It was only when the flight attendant returned to the supposed privacy of her working area that she relayed this incident to her colleagues. They laughed about it and commented on the lack of linguistic abilities of this and other passengers.
Because of the furore since, the cabin crew lost their jobs.
What they said may have shown a lack of sensitivity towards the difficulties in conversing in another language, but, given that the comments were not meant to be public, the flight attendants conversed in a way many others would have done. I don’t think they should have lost their jobs.
Chris Stubbs, Discovery Bay
