Privacy Under The PCC Code Vs Ford Case Summary

The common law jurisdiction in the UK did not hold the rights of an individual 's privacy highly against the public interest of free expression. UK had a tragic lesson learnt with the death of Princess Diana from chasing paparazzi and in 1998 the United Kingdom passed its Human Rights Act which included a right to privacy. Yet many Judges decisions still use the words of breach of confidence.

Privacy, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is the quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others, and the state of being free from public attention or unsanctioned intrusion. Interestingly, the Constitution of the United States does not expressly protect a person 's right to privacy; there are however some provisions to privacy within the Bill of Right and the Amendments to the Constitution. Among them are the first amendment, that ensures the privacy or belief, the third amendment, that ensures the privacy of home, and the fourth amendment, that ensures the privacy of person and possession.

Defining National Security VS Personal Privacy is a matter of looking at the basic nature of each. From research collected there is a consensus that we need balance. Too much of one hurts the other and vise versa. There are a couple of articles that range from Civil Liberties to the birth of public right to know that support the overall claim. Talks about the effects of censorship in different situations like war and peace will help prove that a balance needs to be forged. The problem here isn’t the definition of personal vs national security, but the survival of each in light of each other. There is history in our nation

Articles 8 and 10 of the European convention of human rights and section 6 of the human rights act 1998 relate directly to both of the key issues throughout this problem question. These problems regard towards the publication of photographs containing Brad Pitts family and Dylan Davies attendance to a gamblers anonymous meeting.

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 protects journalists from being required to turn over to law enforcement any work product and documentary materials, including sources before it is disseminated to the public. Journalists who most need the protection of

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

The Constitution states that a person has the right to publish or print any news or opinions that they deem worthy. Yet today some laws prohibit this freedom, by creating laws in order to protect the individual’s privacy, we are limiting ones ability to report facts. Furthermore many records previously available for the public to view are now sealed. On the opposite end of the spectrum new freedoms are being allowed. In a court case, “Justice Joseph Teresi has struck an important blow for constitutional rights and an open judicial process by allowing cameras to televise the murder trial.”[3] By allowing a camera into the courtroom people are better able to get a grasp on our judicial system in the United States. This decision also allows citizens to view first hand news in action, without any biases created by reporters. As some of our freedoms are revoked other are being ratified. These changes

King, Geoffrey. "Clear and present danger: the NSA, surveillance and the threat to press freedom." Nieman Reports 68.1 (2014): 38+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of intrusion on seclusion in Jones v Tsige. This decision provided the foundation for determining damages under the tort. The foundation in Jones was modified by case law. This multiple case analysis will explore how an Ontario court should calculate damages, with reference to the following cases: Alberta v Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Hopkins v Kay, and Condon v Canada. Taken together, these cases indicate that a damage award in Ontario should reflect the offensiveness of the invasion of privacy and the harm it caused. These factors should be balanced against any steps taken by the defendant to rectify the breach. Ultimately, this assessment should be

When the first 10 amendments of the constitution were written, one of the main concerns was government intrusion. In the 1800s, citizens were concern about the confidentiality of their correspondence. Likewise in 1890, the concern was photography and yellow journalism. With lack of privacy laws, citizens brought several cases to the U.S courts because they felt there were violations of privacy. As a consequent, several torts were written and recognize by most states. This torts included the intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light or publicity, and appropriation. Though, historical events have help to expand the definition of privacy, there has not been a critical event that forced America to have a comprehensive federal policy about protecting the right to privacy. Nevertheless, every time that there is a major concern that threatens the right to privacy, the government and the states have passed laws to eliminate those

Within Justice J. Harlan’s dissenting argument in Katz v. United States (1967), Justice Harlan re-identifies the main principles of the two-fold requirement—known as, the reasonable expectation of privacy test (R.E.P.). According to Justice Harlan, the first fold, of this two part fold requirement, must illustrate “a person […] [exhibiting] an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable”.” Thus, we are able to utilize Justice Harlan’s dissenting argument of the two-fold requirement—the R.E.P. test—in regards to Turner’s attempt for overturning her conviction.

According to Dictionary.com confidentiality is “the right of an individual to have personal, identifiable medical information kept private.” The definition for this term is widely known in health care, but when it is applied to adolescents many people do not understand the basics. Doctors are responsible for informing adolescent patients and their parents the privacy a minor is given according to federal and state laws, but in some cases doctors fail to do so. This results in the misunderstanding of minor’s privacy rights, which can lead to the adolescent patient not disclosing significant information, and the parents assuming they have the right to all of their child’s medical records. Because of this, it is important for adolescents and their parents to understand the nature of confidentiality in health care.

“Many laws exist in Britain restraining the media. In 1992, the White Paper, Open Government, identified 251 laws outlawing information disclosure. Two years later the Guild of Editors listed 46 directly relating to journalists. The laws of libel, contempt, defamation, obscenity and ‘gagging’ injunctions to stop alleged breaches of confidence all act as restraints on the media.” (Keeble, Richard/ Ethics for Journalists)

Problems take place within the media when public interest is conflicted with human right and the right to privacy. You can easily validate publishing privet information as a form of public interest, but you however cannot justify the damages it may cause.

How much privacy of the individual is protected under the United States Constitution? Every one is entitled to the right of privacy, but to what extent is that privacy granted? Public figures are constantly being harassed and photographed by the media. Some photographers and reporters will go to any means, even illegal actions, to get a picture or story. However, public figures are human beings like everyone else, and the media should give them more privacy. The media needs to operate with more respect for both laws and for moral and ethical codes of conduct. There are laws establishing the privacy of an individual, and the media needs to extend these rights to public figures.