Top beak: UK privacy law may be reconsidered because of social media The pace of technological change and rise of social media "may make it inevitable" that UK privacy laws need to be revised and updated, the country's most senior judge has said. In a speech at the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents' Club (nine-page/157KB PDF), Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger said that "astonishing …
"If I want to do or say something which I am only prepared to do or say privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot do it or say it because it will be reported in a newspaper," he said.
How does he work that one out? It's not true just because he says it is.
Came here to make that same point. If you are "only prepared to do or say (it) privately" then don't do or say it in front of journalists. If you are prepared to do or say it in front of people who may be (or may forward that information to) journalists, then it is not being done or said "in private".
@numptyscrub
You deliberately mischaracterise the remarks, and it has nothing to do with celebrity or politicians.The point is , is that recording devices are so ubiquitous and social media makes it very easy for ANYBODY to be a "journalist".
There are many remarks you make in ordinary life, which when taken out of context,or misunderstood imply the exact the opposite of your argument eg you may be quoting a scene form say Blazing Saddles (thinks of the arrival of the sheriff) whilst decrying the use of the n word. This is recorded, and next thing you know some sanctimonious twit has whacked just the bit where you are quoting the movie on twatter or facepalm without any context , and then you you are tagged a racist, lose your livelihood, house, wife, children etc etc.
Exactly Diogenes. If I say something in confidence and somebody publishes it online, that is an invasion of my privacy. The same with photos taken at a private party, family BBQ etc. if somebody publishes photos with me in them online without my permission, that is an invasion of my privacy.
quote: "You deliberately mischaracterise the remarks, and it has nothing to do with celebrity or politicians.The point is , is that recording devices are so ubiquitous and social media makes it very easy for ANYBODY to be a "journalist"."
So, the remark I am mischaracterising:
"If I want to do or say something which I am only prepared to do or say privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot do it or say it because it will be reported in a newspaper"
Implying that a voluntary refusal to act, because of a perceived chance of it being reported, is the form of the alleged interference with freedom of expression. You are actually still free to do or say it, but it is fear of the consequences of people finding out that restrains you.
This statement is not referencing things that have already been said or done coming to light, it is referencing things that do not get said or done because they could come to light, and equating that to a violation of freedom of expression. "I cannot express myself, because I do not wish for other people to learn how I expressed myself."
The vast majority of laws are prohibitive in nature, and the fear of the consequences of acts which contravene those laws is supposed to be how we keep society in check. It seems strange that Lord Neuberger is comfortable with "fear of the law" as a valid deterrent to action, but believes "fear of publication" is a violation of his basic rights.
Or am I the only one that put a crime in as his "do or say something" to see how the statement read, and immediately saw it as untenable? "If I want to fiddle kids, which I am only prepared to do privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot fiddle kids because it will be reported in a newspaper" just doesn't work, does it?
This post has been deleted by its author
Also I would argue that when you're in town and bursting there's an inalienable right to nip into an alley if no one's watching. But if there's always someone watching...whereas, say, when your neighbours can see into your back garden, you are in effect in public. See Geezer vs. the Crown, 1974.
If you read the article carefully you'll also note that it says "The UK currently has no dedicated privacy laws".
You'll also notice that everything he says is carefully worded to say that "it may become inevitable" that the law needs to be reviewed rather than saying that "it should be reviewed". That's because he's a Judge responsible for enforcing the law as it stands, and therefore not supposed to directly criticise the idiots who create the laws.
So it's done in a polite and slightly indirect way instead of directly saying "create a privacy law that makes sense you bunch of idiots" to the inhabitants of the house commons, even though that is essentially what is needed, and essentially what he's saying.
"If I want to do or say something which I am only prepared to do or say privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot do it or say it because it will be reported in a newspaper,"
I thought that was what 'D' notices are for? If a judge/politician/policeman says something that would be embarrassing and a newspaper finds out - just claim it's a matter of national security and ban the reporting.
Of course if you are merely rich, you need to just get a super injunction to ban talking about it.
What the UK doesn't have is any workable freedom of information laws.
Since the committee simply asks nicely "please don't publish this as it would harm national security because X would happen if it was public knowledge" then it's difficult to see how. There is no legal sanction for publishing something covered by a D Notice, as you ought to realise given El Reg covered the snowden GCHQ revelations that were covered by a D Notice.
How could you use a system like that to prevent the publication of politically embarrassing facts? The whole reason the D Notice system was setup the way it is was to make it useless for what your suggesting.
It seems to me that he is clearly right. He uses "I" as an example and I can only agree. The very examples here of how people misread or misrepresent the article to have a spiteful go at a judge show the danger.
Journalists are not special. They are not under special obligation and have no extra rights to blab your affairs willy nilly. We should all.
We have all got a right to private opinions. How far would you take the denial of privacy? Or is your prurient interest of overriding g importance even when it does not concern illegality?
To publish it should be shown to be true and relevant to the public interest or with the agreement of the subject.
> I think that there is a strong case for saying that they should be televised: that is merely the modern extension of enabling the public to enter the courts physically
The small amount of stuff I've seen from the Pistorious trial leads me to exactly the opposite conclusion. It all seemed to be grandstanding and playing to the cameras. In the same way that televising Parliament has done nothing to improve its reputation (PMQs has probably eroded the credibility of the Commons more than all the scandals, frauds and fiddles put together) and I can't see how the slow, ponderous, proceedings of a courtroom (I once took myself down to a court, just to see what went on: dull, dull, dull - forget anything like what you see on TV) could ever make "justice" appear more desirable.
I've also seen TV from american courtrooms (I was in Boston during the Harding / Kerrigan skating trial) and can't say it impressed, or interested, me: as an outsider it appeared to just be a platform for a group of self-important individuals to further inflate their egos. As a consequence, I can't see live TV trials being any more significant than the BBC Parliament channel - and probably watched by the same number of people. Though even those numbers of viewers would beat a lot of the digital channels and the vast majority of what comes off the Astra2 satellites.
@ Pete 2
Liked the post. The following is in the vein of a satirical counter-riposte. (We need an icon!)
Pete 2 fails to grasp the essence of the proceedings, probably because of outmoded notions about guilt, innocence, and justice. He needs to understand that he is watching a game show. The plaintiffs, defendants, and jurors are basically bit players. The lawyers are the contestants.
In Pete's defense, the rules of the game are extraordinarily convoluted and arcane. (This is what makes the game appear superficially boring.)
Even the game show hosts (the guys in the basic black dresses) don't know them all. (They do a remarkably good job, all things considered.) But in broad terms, the outcome of the game is determined by which lawyer is able to exploit the rules most effectively to exclude truth from the proceedings.
Once the viewer grasps this, the show can actually be quite riveting.
There is a serious downside. Familiarity breeds contempt of court, which--however richly deserved--can lead to incarceration.
Lord Neuberger is, in some respects, late to the party. The question of privacy--or in US Supreme Court Justice Brandeis's succinct phrasing, "The right to be left alone," has been a burning issue since long before twits started tweeting and narcissists started facebooking.
Both privacy and being secure in one's person are widely held to be basic human rights. The objective of the game--and the great challenge--has always been finding an acceptable balance point where these overlap. Current laws do not adequately address this objective. However, while the emergence of social media and global terrorism radically changes the playing field, we should not allow it to change the objective of the game.
Society at large must be vigilant in guarding against the natural bent of those who govern for passing laws that accrete power and wealth to themselves and the special interests to whom they are beholden for their positions.
"Odd, because that doesn't seem to have stopped the last few governments from passing all sorts of unenforceable laws which look good in the media..."
Well, it's not odd for him to be saying it. He's a judge. He didn't create the situation. He's the one that has to cope with it. He's giving them feedback.
>Well, it's not odd for him to be saying it.
Indeed, it is true and he isn't the first to have observed this. Politicians just don't care because its all about the ratings which turn it into a gameshow.
As one (BBC IIRC) political analyst said, "Tony Blair passionately believed everything the focus groups told him."
Odd, because that doesn't seem to have stopped the last few governments from passing all sorts of unenforceable laws which look good in the media...
The point of all those laws is to makes sure you are guilty of something if there is ever a need to lock you up. Simples.
"[concerns] about witnesses and lawyers playing to the gallery have to be addressed"
The judge forgot to include 'judges' in that statement.
Judge Judy is sickening. When the judge is a self-obsessed narcissist who bullies plaintiffs and defendants alike just to play up to the cameras, it is really not something we want to emulate.
"I think that there is a strong case for saying that [court hearings] should be televised: that is merely the modern extension of enabling the public to enter the courts physically. Of course, concerns about intimidation of witnesses..."
Just appearing as a witness can be intimidating in itself and even more so where the witness is a victim. As one of the learned friends the judge probably doesn't fully grasp the extent of this as the court is his natural element. The thought of going home & finding oneself on the six-o'clock news would only make it worse, especially as it would no doubt incite a certain type of cross-examiner to brow-beat witnesses even further.
Another major problem in televising court cases is cherry-picking by the media. We all know the mainstream media have their own political agendas and biased reporting and selective coverage to present one side of the story is normal these days. So of course the MSM would leave out certain statements and replay others a dozen times, in the usual Trial By Media fashion.
If we allow this, then we have to add a stipulation that if a TV station wishes to broadcast a court case it must broadcast the ENTIRE hearing UNABRIDGED and UNEDITED. Otherwise we'll simply turn our justice system into a media-biased kangaroo court.
When he abolishes the UK's adherance to European Convention on Human Rights, and replaces it with........er nothing.
After all, who needs rights? Aren't those the things you buy when you're rich enough? Peasants deserve only the rights that the King allows.
/sarcasm off.
At least Scotland has a vision for the future - we're stuck with Cameron or Milliband, and they've declared war on human rights and civil liberties
:(
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
