2.0 – Introduction
The main body of law governing the European data protection system is the Directive 95/46/EC which provides the standard framework for EU Member States as “to protect fundamental rights and freedom of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to processing of personal data” , therefore it applies to the United Kingdom as well. Nevertheless, its basic provisions raises very serious impacts on the right of free expression, also restricting the centre values of the right which relating to media as gathering, storing and imparting of information.
However, from the point of view of media expression, Member States are required to provide derogations to exclude any bounding provision by their own law but “only if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing freedom of expression” . Notwithstanding, these goals of balancing rights are also represented by the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case concerning the data protection obligations of Google . It is widely accepted that , since the beginning, European data protection is in a particularly opposing relationship with the right of media to freedom of expression.
From the one side the media as an entity is not only responsible for “the collection and storage of huge amounts of personal information” but it has also been argued that “it is the media…which is capable of inflicting the gravest damage on the individual” by
For the home country England there are many policies and procedures within the legislation that relate to safeguarding human rights, data protection and confidentiality. These have been refined into every school policy and procedures such as the human rights act 1998/2004, children act 1989/2004 and the data protection act 1998.
Information Commissioner’s Office (2012) Introduction to The Data Protection Act 1998. [Online] Available from: http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/ico_presentation_EVOC_20120528.ashx [Accessed: 11th October 2013]
Electronic media can make a negative impact each of our lives, separating us from reality and
The media, in spite of the fact that it might incite or propagate forceful conduct, can't be considered completely dependable. Rather, it might be viewed as one impact that is working in an aggregate circumstance among numerous others, and is liable to fortify previous social and individual propensities, inclinations, states of mind, practices, convictions, and worth frameworks, which advance threatening vibe and
The word media is defined as the means or the channels of general communication in society, and it is used to store and deliver information data. Since the 20th century, there has been drastic growth in social media, computers, television, movies and the Internet, and the information passed in these media platforms influences people’s life. Media presentations are designed to attract a larger number of the audience rather than provide sufficiently accurate information. This paper critically analyzes how media represents psychological issues in the society particularly murder cases, Dissociate Identity
This subtly alludes to the media’s manipulation of individuals for their self-interest in profit maximisation, in which case privacy is commodified.
The study will revolve around the novel and its relevance to the effects of media to society. It shall adhere to the novel’s impending questions surrounding the issues of
- the first case to duly recognize an invasion of privacy by stating ‘the court no longer needs to construct an artificial relationship of confidentiality between the intruder and victim: it can recognize privacy itself as a legal principle drawn from the fundamental value of personal autonomy’. The court finds that the HRA is an Act of indirect horizontality pursuant to Section 6(3) of HRA and it must act in compatibility of the Convention rights. It is aimed at incremental change and a developmental approach towards the law of privacy. This marks the beginning of the recognition of privacy rights in the
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was designed to harmonize the data privacy laws across Europe. This is mainly done to protect and empower the EU citizens data privacy and to reshape the way organizations approach data privacy. Let’s understand the requirements of Europe’s GDPR privacy and how it affects US companies.
“Societies have always been shaped by media for communication, it is impossible to understand social and cultural change without knowledge of the workings of media even the alphabet is a technology that is absorbed by young children to learn to speak through communication. The digital age is changing the way we use our brains. Rather than store important facts, today we are more likely to store information about how to find those facts where a particular file is located on the computer, how to find an important webpage again.
– Article 2: “Personal Data shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable person is one who can be identified , directly or indirectly, in particular, by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental economic , cultural or social identity” – Article 8: Personal data revealing
On October 31, 2006, eighteen-year-old Nikki Catsouras slammed her father’s sports car into the side of a concrete tollbooth in Orange County, California, resulting in the decapitation of her head. The California Highway Patrol, following standard protocol, secured the scene and took photographs. A few weeks later, photos from the crash were circulating on the Internet. As summarized in a later court filing, two employees of the CHP admitted to e-mailing nine gruesome images of Castouras’ injuries to their friends and family members on Halloween—for pure shock value. The Catsouras family took legal action against the CHP in an attempt to remove the gruesome pictures off the Internet. This incident is one of many that has caused individuals
Act was made law in 1984 but was replaced by a new Act in 1998 to
In Axel Springer Ag v. Germany case, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the prohibition put by the domestic court on the owner of a newspaper ‘Bild’ who wanted to publish materials about the arrest and proof of guilt of a well-known actor violated Article 10 of the ECHR. The court, in this case, had to find a balance between two fundamental human rights - the right to private life against the right to freedom of expression.
Thirdly, the courts considered whether those interferences were justified. The court pointed out that, as far as Article 7 and Article 8 were concerned and despite the fact that data retention constituted a particularly serious interference with the rights therein , the Directive 2004 did not adversely affect the essence of those rights.