What Rights Of Actions Are For The Unlawful Surveillance Of Your Home Privacy?

Data Protection Act 1998 – gives individuals the right to know what information is held about them, and those that processes personal information must comply with eight principles, which makes sure that personal information is fairly and lawfully processed; processed for limited purposes; adequate, relevant and not excessive; accurate and up to date; not kept for longer than is necessary; processed in line with your rights; secure; not transferred to other countries without adequate protection;

Your home is where you should have the most sense of protection and where your privacy should be most respected. In fact, it is supposed to have the most degree of protection of the Fourth Amendment. Document D helps emphasize the unknowingness of the exposure of DLK’s conduct to the public. The advances in technology have far surpassed what can be noticeable without the use of them. “When technology can exceed the natural senses, it subverts the human ability to contain private matters in a normal way and threatens the core expectation of privacy in the home” (Document D). Although the imager was able to be used from the outside of the house, it still violated the privacy of what was on the inside. Document F states, “[In this case,] the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without [going in], the surveillance is a search and is... unreasonable

2 The Privacy Act 1988 (Commonwealth) is the law that explains the professional, ethical obligations related to privacy and confidentiality,

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

Disclosing confidential patient information without patient consent can happen in the health care field quite often and is the basis for many cases brought against health care facilities. There are many ways confidential information gets into the wrong hands and this paper explores some of those ways and how that can be prevented.

* Confidentiality – the steps that are taken when people’s information is not kept confidential and on a need to know basis

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 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

In Halliday v Nevill (‘Halliday’s Case’), which is the relevant authority, situations in which police officers may enter private premises without the express or implied consent of the owner were considered. The majority of the High Court of Australia held that “…in the absence of any indication to the contrary, the implied or tacit licence to persons to go upon the open driveway of a suburban dwelling for legitimate purposes is not so confined

On the contrary, Medicare Australia has uncovered employees for possible unauthorized access of client records in the past 3 years. This case therefore alarmed Health Consumers, Privacy and Technology advocates on the infringement of the right to privacy. This is case identifies the possibility of the illegal access of records that may be their own, relatives or friends. It raises the possibility that records are altered for self-interest or gain unlawful reimbursements that would defraud the government. There is therefore an issue on the security of the system and likewise personal data and information which may be used for illegal activities.

Nowadays in today’s society it's like if we’re living 1984 just how George Orwell predicted it would be. At all times we are all being monitored whether it's thru a camera or an electronic. The national security is now able to keep telephone & internet records. Just when you thought your private moments were private, turns out you're wrong.

Confidentiality was explained to Lorena, and also the exceptions in which, confidentiality would have to be breached. Lorena was asked if she understood this, she replied “Yea”. ACA (2005, Section, 2.3.3.1. Breaching the confidentiality and therefore trust between Lorena and myself in this instance, was necessary and unavoidable, ACA, 2.3.4.1, (2008), and 2.3.4.3 and ACA, , B.2a, B.2c(2005).

First of all, it is important to know the definition of privacy, it is the right to control who knows what about you, and under what conditions. The right to share different things with the people that you want and the right to know that your personal email, medical records and bank details are safe and secure. Privacy is essential to human dignity and autonomy in all societies. If someone has committed a physical intrusion, or, in discussing the principal question, has published embarrassing or inaccurate personal material or photographs of the individual taken without consent, he is invading their right of privacy, which is in the article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Furthermore, Misuse of CCTV surveillance is not limited; Data Protection Commissioner Billy Hawkes revealed his office opened 783 formal complaints during 2010, with more than 400 cases related to data security breaches. This is how day by day use of CCTV is increasing and misuse of it is also increasing so it will be better to reduce usage of this CCTV. There are so many issue in more developed countries due to high use of surveillance technology An article title of BBC new on 6 December 2005 “CCTV staff 'spied on naked woman'” Two council workers used CCTV

People reasonably expect privacy inside a house or fenced yard not visible from the street and inside living facilities such as in hospitals and nursing homes. Photographers need permission to both enter and photograph these private places. However, anyone is fair game to be photographed and have their picture published if the photo was taken from a public place. This includes people seen through the windows of their own home (Dill, 178). However, one New York Court ruled that photographers shooting inside a restaurant needed permission because the restaurant was a public place for purposes of dining, and patrons dining there should reasonably be allowed to dine in peace (Dill, 177). Even though it is currently legal to photograph public figures in the privacy of their own homes, ethically speaking it does not mean these pictures should be published. However, because ethical codes are not working, there needs to be legal reform.