PRIVACY & DATA PROTECTION
PRIVACY & DATA PROTECTION
Since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force , English law has developed a legal right to privacy . The courts can and will intervene to protect privacy rights where they are infringed without justification . This is commonly referred to as ‘ misuse of private information ’. Personal information is also protected by the Data Protection Act , so journalists and programme-makers need to be aware of , and comply with , its rules as it applies to them . In this section , we report on some recent privacy and data protection decisions of note . See also Regulatory decisions from page 8 .
PRIVACY ( US ): LA police charge Playboy model for invasion of privacy
n In the last issue of zoom-in , we reported that Playboy model Dani Mathers was being investigated for uploading a photograph to Snapchat of a 70-year-old naked woman in a gym changing room with the words : ‘ If I can ’ t unsee this then you can ’ t either .’ Since then , Ms Mathers has formally been charged with invasion of privacy .
Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said : ‘ While body shaming , in itself , is not a crime , there are circumstances in which invading one ’ s privacy to accomplish it can be .’ Ms Mathers ’ lawyer expressed his disappointment , saying she never intended to invade anyone ’ s privacy or to break the law . Ms Mathers ’ first scheduled court appearance is on 28 November . If convicted , she could face up to six months in jail and a $ 1,000 fine .
PRIVACY ( US ): Actors can have their ages removed from IMDb
n From 2017 , actors will be able to force IMDb ( the online film , television and video game database ) to remove their ages , under a new California law . The change to the law is aimed at preventing age discrimination , in particular in casting , although it will apply to all in the entertainment industry . The law will apply to subscription websites , including IMDb ’ s Pro service . Critics have said the law inhibits free speech , and are concerned about the precedent set by forcing the removal of information which is true . The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists supported the change , which was signed into law in September and will come into force on 1 January 2017 .
While free speech is generally considered of paramount value in the US , and protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution , this is not the first inroad made by Californian law . In 2013 the law took aim at the behaviour of paparazzi photographing children , with a law substantially increasing the penalties for ‘ intentional harassment ’ of a child arising out of their parent ’ s job . The potential fine increased from $ 1,000 to $ 10,000 , and the potential period of imprisonment from six months to a year . Again , some opposed the change , saying it would have a detrimental effect on photographers and reporters and their ability to earn a living . However , as the law applies only to deliberate harassment , it arguably does not in fact inhibit free speech .
Both these legal changes show a move in the US towards better protecting the privacy and family life of celebrities and those in the entertainment business . In the UK such rights are currently protected by the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights , and given effect by UK laws including two statutes – the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Data Protection Act 1998 – and the ability to sue for misuse of private information or breach of confidence .
The law in the US remains very different from that here in the UK , and local legal advice should always be taken when acting across jurisdictions , or broadcasting material made or previously broadcast elsewhere . However , these changes show there are some areas where the law on both sides of the Atlantic is moving in the same direction .
Court grants privacy injunction over police investigation
n The High Court has granted an interim injunction to a wealthy businessman to prevent reporting of a police investigation into him . The businessman was interviewed under caution , but has not been arrested . In the course of the investigation , which relates to allegations of financial crime , both the businessman ’ s company and another company ’ s premises were searched .
The court was asked to consider whether the businessman had a reasonable expectation of privacy : first , in the fact of the interview under caution ; and second , in the fact of the investigation .
Associated Newspapers , publishers of the Daily Mail , accepted that the businessman ’ s privacy rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged , and that as things stood the newspaper ’ s right to freedom of speech would not give it a right to publish the fact of the interview under caution . The newspaper had stated that if it intended to publish a story , it would give the businessman 24 hours ’ notice . As such , the Court found that no injunction about the fact of the interview was needed . The businessman was wealthy and had ready access to lawyers - 24 hours would be enough to go back to court if necessary .
The Judge found that if the businessman had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact of the interview under caution , he also had a reasonable
26 | zoom-in Winter 2016