The Tort Misuse of Private Information - Essay Example

The tort: Misuse of private information Introduction "...the last few years have seen the substantial development of the old law of breach of confidence so that it has developed an offshoot which we are probably now justified in calling the tort of the misuse of private information." (Winfield and Jolowicz) 1 Breach of confidence is a civil wrong, concerning the unauthorized release of confidential information and is a type of tort.  The aggrieved people can file a case in court of law for breach of confidence and the damage award will depend on the harm considering the circumstances. For example, doctors by their patients and attorneys by their clients are trusted with confidential information, and the duty of confidentiality is breached when there is betrayal on the part of these professionals and the information passed on without permission. There are remedies available in English law for breach of confidence, and it must be established that: the information has “the necessary degree of confidence about it”; the information was provided in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and 1. Winfield and Jolowicz, Tort, 18th edition, W.V.H. Rogers (for an injunction or declaration to be granted)there was an unauthorised use or disclosure of that information and, at least, the risk of damage2 “It may be hardly doubted that the lack of a clear legal remedy in respect of the non-consensual disclosure of personal information is one of the most serious lacunae in English Law” 3 Radical developments in breach of confidence have been ushered-in since The Human Rights Act 1998, and privacy, confidentiality and information sharing are now covered comprehensively under this Act. Breach of confidence In the UK there has been no specific right with reference to ‘privacy’ and this concept is evolving. The provisions with regard to privacy are found in breach of confidence and human rights legislation. For example, there is breach of confidence involved in situations where a duty of confidence exists. The English Courts have established, in many cases, publishing unauthorised photographs or information constitutes breach of confidence. Interception of mail and telephone calls were subject to statutory regulation, but statutory basis was not established until Police Act 1997 came into force. 2. Health and Safety Executive, Breach of Confidence, 2009 3. Phillipson & Fenwick. Breach of Confidence as a Privacy Remedy in the Human Rights Act Era, The Modern Law Review, 2000, p. 660 Surveillance is a clear breach of the target’s rights under Article 8. However, under Article 8(2) certain breaches of the right will be lawful…but only so long as the interference with the right (to privacy) is “in accordance with the law”. That phrase simply means that there had to be some proper statutory authority for the interference… This led to Parliament enacting Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), which formalised all State surveillance operations against its citizens. 4 In Kaye v Robertson which involves a well known actor who had undergone extensive surgery and was in hospital when he was photographed and allegedly interviewed by a tabloid newspaper. His rights could not be protected by an action for breach of privacy. The Court of appeal noted that the case “highlighted, yet again, the failure of both the common law and of statute to protect in an effective way the personal privacy of individual citizens."5 The lack of right to privacy in the UK prior to the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) had been rectified with the introduction of HRA and the general right under Article 8 was established. Misuse of Private Information In Campbell v Mirror Group of papers (2002) the news paper published a celebrity’s treatment for drug addiction along with photographs taken covertly constituted an interference with her right to private life which outweighed the right to freedom of expression by the newspaper, though she was a drug addict. 4. Lennor & Rehman, Entrapment, inside time, 2008. 5. Crone, Law and the Media, 4th edition, Focal Press, 2002, p.115, Justice Morland observed that the details of Miss Naomi Campbell’s attendance at Narcotics Anonymous do have the necessary quality of confidence about them. They bear the badge or mark of confidentiality. In my judgment it matters not whether therapy is obtained by means of professional medical input or by alternative means such as group counseling or as here organised meetings for discussion between sufferers. They were obtained surreptitiously assisted by covert photography when Miss Campbell was engaged deliberately “low key” and drably dressed in the private activity of therapy to advance her recovery from drug addiction. 6 The case was decided against Naomi Campbell in the Court of Appeal. Held, the Mirror Group was not liable; the photographs could be published as they were peripheral to the published story and served only to show her in a better light. It was within journalists margin of appreciation to decide whether such "peripheral" information was necessary to carry credibility. “The House of Lords’ decision in Campbell laid the foundations for a new cause of action which has come to be known by the name given to it by Lord Nicholls: ‘misuse of private information’. This cause of action has subsequently been used on several high-profile occasions…” 7 It is also important to note that people may have access to information without having any duty of confidence, and these individuals can’t be held for breach of confidence. Getting access to information in an authorized manner does not amount to breach of confidence. Carelessness, though not viewed kindly, is not treated as breach of confidence, if the plaintiff has not suffered any harm. 6. Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2002] EWHC 499 (QB) 7. Bennett, CORRECTIVE JUSTICE AND HORIZONTAL PRIVACY: A LEAF OUT OF WRIGHT J’S BOOK, 2010, P. 547 Similarly in the case of information theft there is no duty of confidentiality involved. If disclosure of confidential information results in harm to a person’s reputation or interests it yields grounds for legal action. However, the plaintiff should establish that the information has been used to his or her detriment. The breach of confidence has evolved over a period of time to cover privacy and invasion of privacy. The tort of invasion of privacy has been evolving in the aftermath of the Human Rights Act, though in most of the situations earlier, the protection of privacy has been justified in an action for breach of confidence. According to the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into the UK’s legislation, everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence, an every person is entitled to enjoy private life. The courts in the case of misuse of private information apply the ‘The Threshold Test’ to determine the conditions with reference to Article 8 are satisfied in respect of an individual who is affected by publicity and the ‘Balancing Test’ against public interest and the right to freedom of expression. The public authorities act in the interest of national security, public safety, law and order, protection of the rights and freedom of people are justified in their actions in any claims against them. The interpretation of the court in respect of the issue of public interest varies according to the circumstances obtained in a particular case. The discretion of the court is guided by the privacy concerns of the individual, the justification of the public interest involved and the right to freedom of expression. The information already in the public domain cannot be brought under the purview of privacy. Rights to privacy and freedom of expression In a recent case of invasion of privacy involving the footballer, Gary Flitcroft, it was observed that rights to freedom of expression outweighed rights to privacy. The principle as enunciated in the ‘breach of confidence’ cannot be relied upon if there is conflict between the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. When a public figure makes untrue statements about his private life, the newspapers and media are entitled to set the record straight, especially when the individual has been misleading the public. The court has upheld the rights of the media in publishing the confidential and private information. In this case, the plaintiff obtained an injunction to prevent the The People newspaper reporting it. In the guidelines given at the Court of Appeal by Lord Woolf, Chief Justice, suggest that rights to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act clearly outweighed rights to privacy under article 8, and it was stated “While a public figure is entitled to have his privacy respected in appropriate circumstances, such a person must recognise that his actions will be more closely scrutinised by the media, particularly where he has courted attention relating to his private life. The public have an understandable and legitimate interest in being told information about such a person”. 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. McKie, Private Lives in Public, The Journal Online, 2004, p. 24. European Convention on Human Rights It is essential to lay down principles for the determination of the limits of Private Life in torts of invasion of privacy. Though there has been no formal definition, the substantial development of the old law of breach of confidence over the period of time have marked the limits by way of precedents and the boundaries have been redrawn based on the circumstances of the new cases when they are justified. However, after incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the UK legislation, a new element of ‘human rights to privacy’ have come into existence and recognized in the legal landscape of the UK and it is significantly different in concept and application compared to rights under private law. Article 8 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence".9 The lacunae in the common law has been removed by the Article 8 (1) and the private and family life has been recognized in law explicitly. Article 8(2) states “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.10 The Article 8(2) defines the powers and authority of the public office in relation to private and family life. 9. European Court of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 2010, p.6 10. European Court of Human Rights, Ibid. p.6 It is also important to note that the interference by a public authority should be in accordance with the law and deemed necessary in a democratic society. Therefore, onus of the proof is with the authority to clearly establish that any action taken under this act is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The law has elaborately provided various circumstances that may lead to invasion of privacy to individuals. Therefore, it may be necessary for the authorities satisfy any one of these conditions to exercise its authority to act in contravention of right to respect for an individual’s private and family life, his home and his correspondence. And it is also further strengthened by prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, and so on. Under Article 14, the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.11 Careful and sometimes difficult balances need to be struck between qualified rights, and other interests, such as national security, or the prevention of crime… However, any of the restrictions mentioned above would have to be carefully justified. The State cannot simply impose restrictions on rights on a vague pretext that there is a need to prevent disorder.12 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. European Court of Human Rights, Ibid p.7, 12. Justice, A Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, 2000, p. 13. Breach of confidence as a privacy remedy Breach of confidence cannot provide satisfactory basis for remedy in respect of invasion of privacy. “Accordingly, the courts will, after all, eventually have to face up to the issue of horizontal effect in this context – and will be required to subscribe to the direct application of Convention rights if full protection is to be afforded against media intrusion”. 13 There are two types of infringement of privacy, infringement by intrusion and infringement by publication. In the case of media infringement of privacy, it takes place through intrusion while recording or taking photos by gaining access to the place for gathering information, and the infringement by the publication is considered as an invasion of privacy. If intrusion resulted in recording of information, the remedy should address the issue of publication by preempting possible dissemination. In Douglas v Hello! the plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant magazine from publishing unauthorized photographs. It was held that interference with the freedom of the press was not justified when monetary compensation on account of profits would adequately compensate the claimants, and the important point for consideration is the breach of confidence. Keene L.J. comment in this case, “whether the resulting liability is described as being for breach of confidence or for breach of a right to privacy may be little more than deciding what label is to be attached to the cause of action” 14 13. Morgan, Privacy, Confidence and Horizontal Effect: “Hello” Trouble, The Cambridge Law Journal, 2003, p. 444 14. Morgan, Privacy, Confidence and Horizontal Effect: “Hello” Trouble, The Cambridge Law Journal, 2003, p. 450 The traditional private law has been dealing with the protection of privacy efficiently and equitably up to certain point of time in the legal history, but, the incremental developments in traditional law are not sufficient to keep pace with the developments in the society to protect privacy of the people. Developments in British Law over the period of time The political debates and discussions about invasions of privacy by the press is important to understand the social implications in proper perspective, and it has culminated into setting up a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. David Calcutt QC, who have produced a meticulous and carefully argued report on a complex and sensitive subject. The committee asserts that, in general, freedom of expression should take precedence over protection of privacy and that where such protection is necessary it is best provided through specific, targeted remedies. It rejects the introduction of a statutory right of reply and concludes that the case for a statutory tort of infringement of privacy has not so far been made out.15 With regard to the physical intrusion by the press, with particular reference to actor Gorden Kaye’s experience at the hospital, three new criminal offences were recommended: trespass on private property to obtain personal information for publication, planting a surveillance device on private property to secure information for publication and of taking a photograph and recording the voice, of someone on private property for publication, with the intention that he should be identifiable. However, when it is done with the lawful authority, with the intention to expose crime or other wrongdoing these would be subject to defences of public right to know. 15. Hansard, Calcutt Report, 1990, p. 1125 The government has accepted them in principle as a remedy against the worst excesses of the press. The Calcutt Committee said that nowhere they have found wholly satisfactory statutory definition of privacy. Sir Robert Megarry held with regard to the interference with privacy in the Malone case that: "English law did not entertain actions for interference with privacy unless the interference amounted to one of the established causes of action in tort or equity".16 Personal privacy legislation came into existence in Britain by incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. It is also argued that there are a number of surveillance techniques—collection and retention of purchasing behavior in corporate databases, for example—that this definition does not cover. In addition, it does not provide a strong rationale for why privacy should be protected as a social good…Only when the essential contributions of privacy to a healthy society are understood can we properly assess the balance between the social needs for surveillance and the rights of citizens for privacy in their lives.17 There are several countries such as United States, Ireland and India where privacy is not explicitly recognized in the Constitution, but these rights are found by the courts in other provisions or acts. In many countries, international agreements that recognize privacy rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted into law.18 Developments in technology and telecommunications calls for continuous revisit to the earlier provisions made in the light of the then prevailing situation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. UK Law online, Princess Diana, Privacy Laws and Press Freedom in the United Kingdom, UK Law Online, 1997 17. Hayles, Waking Up to the Surveillance Society, Surveillance and Society 2009, p.313-314 18. Global Internet Liberty Campaign, Privacy and Human Rights New Tort of invasion of privacy In the UK the privacy cases have been earlier dealt by the courts on the grounds of ‘breach of confidence’. The current situation is one of uncertainty. The overall legal context is developing with the implications of the two 1998 Acts, on data protection and on human rights, yet fully to emerge.19 There are two schools of thought prevailing in respect of tort of invasion of privacy on trials, one being protection through extension of ‘breach of confidence’ based on cause of action involving collection of confidential information and breach of confidence where the relationship of confidence exists with the plaintiff or deemed to exist and the information used to the detriment of the plaintiff. As against the inference from the facts of the case and the circumstances, and recourse to ‘deeming’ without any definition existing for the elements of tort, the other school of thought suggests new self-standing tort based on modern law without any reference to the legal fictions. This is also in line with the reforms taking place worldwide, and the need for integrating the legal process in tune with the developments. The debate and discussions over the need for a privacy law in the have been raging with opposing views on the question. The Government has stated clearly that it has no intention of bringing forward proposals for a privacy law and the PCC, the press industry and others argue strongly against the proposal. At the same time the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has been critical of the UK in this respect and the subsequent introduction of the Human Rights Act has led to a number of judgments in the English Courts indicative of pressure towards a privacy law. 20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. House of Commons: Culture, Media and Sports Committee, Privacy and Media Intrusion, 2003, p.3 20. House of Commons: Culture, Media and Sports Committee, Ibid, p.39 Law Reforms Legal reform in a democratic country is a continuous process in line with the changes taking place in the society and the international developments. Legal reforms in privacy laws need to take into account the various implications of general and other laws, and it also should be ensured that the transition phase is smooth. For example, there is a belief that defamation laws are stifling the freedom of press. The proposals on the reform of the law of defamation were announced on 15th March 2011. These reforms aim to bring libel law up to date, balancing protection of peoples right to free speech. This is expected to enable people who have genuinely been defamed to protect their reputations. One of the important proposal is "A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause substantial harm to the reputation of the claimant.”21 This test becomes necessary to avoid flood of litigations, though tor this purpose there is already a "threshold of seriousness" available. If the interpretation of the law is left to the discretion of the courts, especially in the case of invasion of privacy of the individuals which is evolving, and in view of the circumstances which vary greatly from case to case broad guidelines in this connection becomes necessary. Also, the need for integrating the laws of the country to the international laws becomes necessary in view of the consequences which transcend the borders of the countries. In this libel law reforms, the new statutory defences rests on the principles, responsible publication on matter of public interest (A list of matters when assessing this questions is set out.), Truth (showing that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true and honest opinion, must be one which an honest person could have held. 21. Watts & Bateman, Defamation: libel law reform announced, Lexology, 2011 Misuse of private information – Personal data The statement “the last few years have seen the substantial development of the old law of breach of confidence so that it has developed an offshoot which we are probably now justified in calling the tort of the misuse of private information” underlines the growing influence of the concept of ‘misuse of private information’ in the legal landscape, especially on account of developments in technology, telecommunications and media. The advent of internet, revolutions in media and social networks in addition to the conventional broadcast and press media necessitated revisiting the existing laws in the light of these developments. The dimension of the issue of private information is much larger, hence the misuse of private information. The law and practice in respect of data protection has also undergone drastic changes over the period of time. For example, The 1998 Act implemented the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (the Data Protection Directive). 22 The security of the personal data has become an important issue as loss or theft of the same could lead to misuse of private information. As is expected, there have been controversies over definition of personal data or information by the courts. In Durant v FSA7 the Court of Appeal considered the definition of personal data and gave judgment on two elements, first, the phrase “relates to” and second, the definition of a relevant filing system. The court’s comments on the phrase “relate to” have been the most controversial. 23 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22. Grant, Data Protection 1998 – 2008, Bird & Bird, 2008, p.1 23. Grant Ibid, p. 1 Tort of Privacy: International law There was a question raised about the applicability of ‘personal privacy’ to corporations on the grounds that a corporation is a "person" under the law and, therefore, entitled to "personal privacy. In Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., No. 09-1279, in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that corporations do not fall within the "personal privacy" exception at issue. 24 This decision has been hailed as an important one that signals an end to the concept of corporate privacy. At a time when the concept of privacy is gaining momentum, it is hampered by the modern invasions of privacy which involve modern technology, and perhaps right to privacy is neither absolute nor realistic. The human rights and its legal implications in international perspective would be useful for comparison. “As an intergovernmental organization and subject to international law, the EU can be said to be bound by customary international law, treaties to which it is a party, and human rights treaties entered into individually by Member States through the principle of succession or substitution. This would extend the range of applicable rights far beyond those in the ECHR to other obligations in, for instance, UN human rights treaties”. 25 China has passed the new Tort Liability Law in December 2009, which take effect as of July 1, 2010. One notable development is the recognition of individuals "right to privacy" as an independent civil right. 26 This tort liability law has not defined ‘personal information, but a person’s medical history is recognized as personal information. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24. Royal, Yang, Beringer & Southwell, U.S. Supreme Court finds the definition of "personal privacy" in one statute to exclude the privacy of corporations, Lexology, 2011. 25. Ahmed & Butler, The European Union and Human Rights: An International Law Perspective, The European Journal of International Law, 2006, p. 771. 26. Deng, Issacs & Lauffs, Step Towards More Individual Privacy Protection in New Tort Liability Law, 2010 Conclusion In majority of the cases, as there is no time lag between collection of information and publicity, the aggrieved people have no recourse to rectify the damages already made, and the remedies in the form of fines or compensation to the affected are not sufficient enough to act as a restraint on the media. In many of the countries privacy is not explicitly recognized in the Constitution, but covered in other provisions. The protection of individual privacy has been very recent in the history and the concept gathered momentum in the recent decades. Violations of laws in respect of surveillance of communication exist even in the most advanced democratic countries. The Police Departments in many countries maintain files containing even private information of the people not associated with any crime. The law of breach of confidence though very flexible in dealing with the privacy issues has due to compulsion of time gave way to The Human Rights Act 1998 which directly deals with the misuse of private information. This is in line with the general movement throughout the world towards the adoption of comprehensive privacy laws based on the models introduced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Council of Europe. Yet, it is very difficult for most of the governments to catch up with the pace of technological developments resulting into gaps in making laws. Through the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the UK legislation, a new element of ‘human rights to privacy’ have come into existence and recognized in the legal landscape of the UK which also facilitates integration with the international law. It is significantly different in concept and application compared to rights under private law and has been evolving into a tort of the misuse of private information. References 1. Winfield and Jolowicz, Tort, 18th edition, W.V.H. Rogers 2. Health and Safety Executive, (2009) Breach of Confidence, http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-breach.htm 3. Phillipson, G. & Fenwick, H. (2000) Breach of Confidence as a Privacy Remedy in the Human Rights Act Era, The Modern Law Review, Vol.63, No.5, Sep 2000 4. Lennor, J. & Rehman, A. (2008) Entrapment, inside time, http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=346&c=entrapment 5. Crone, T. (2002) Law and the Media, 4th edition, Eds. Alberstat, P., Cassels, T. & Overs, E., Focal Press 6. Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2002] EWHC 499 (QB) (27th March, 2002), BAILII, http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/499.html&query=title+(+Campbell+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+Mirror+)&method=boolean 7. Bennett,. T.D.C. (2010) CORRECTIVE JUSTICE AND HORIZONTAL PRIVACY: A LEAF OUT OF WRIGHT J’S BOOK, THE JOURNAL JURISPRUDENCE 8. McKie, D. (2004) Private Lives in Public, The Journal Online, 1 August 2004, http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/49-8/1000165.aspx 9. European Court of Human Rights (2010) Article 8, Right to respect for private and family life, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, p.6, http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres/d5cc24a7-dc13-4318-b457-5c9014916d7a/0/englishanglais.pdf 10. European Court of Human Rights (2010) Article 8, Right to respect for private and family life, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, p.6, http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres/d5cc24a7-dc13-4318-b457-5c9014916d7a/0/englishanglais.pdf 11. European Court of Human Rights (2010) Article 14, Prohibition of Discrimination, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, p.7, http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres/d5cc24a7-dc13-4318-b457-5c9014916d7a/0/englishanglais.pdf 12. Justice (2000) A Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/HRAINT.PDF 13. Morgan, J. (2003) Privacy, Confidence and Horizontal Effect: “Hello” Trouble, The Cambridge Law Journal, July 2003, Vol. 62, pp.444-473 14. Morgan, J. (2003) Privacy, Confidence and Horizontal Effect: “Hello” Trouble, Ibid. 15. Hansard (1990) Calcutt Report, HC Deb 21 June 1990 Vol. 174 cc1125-34, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1990/jun/21/calcutt-report 16. UK Law online, Princess Diana, Privacy Laws and Press Freedom in the United Kingdom, UK Law Online, 1997, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/princess.htm 17. Hayles, N. K. (2009) Waking Up to the Surveillance Society, Surveillance and Society, 6(3), p. 313-316, http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/lords2_hayles/lords2_hayles 18. Global Internet Liberty Campaign, Privacy and Human Rights: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Practice, http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html 19. House of Commons: Culture, Media and Sports Committee, (2003) Privacy and Media Intrusion, Fifth Report of Session 2002-03, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmcumeds/458/458.pdf 20. House of Commons: Culture, Media and Sports Committee, (2003) Ibid 21. Watts & Bateman, (2011) Defamation: libel law reform announced, Herbert Smith LLP, Lexology, Association of Corporate Counsel, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fd52582c-d807-4160-b0ea-614aa7d90d61 22. Grant, H. (2008) Data Protection 1998 – 2008, Bird & Bird, 2008, http://www.lexology.com/library/document.ashx?g=800ce713-457f-4881-9bde-fd27db6c952c#page=1 23. Grant, H. Data Protection 1998 – 2008, Ibid. 24. Royal, M. S., Yang, D. W., Beringer, S. A. & Southwell, A. H. (2011), U.S. Supreme Court finds the definition of "personal privacy" in one statute to exclude the privacy of corporations, Lexology, Association of Corporate Counsel, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d4838739-a7a4-4b85-9cda-feb8256b8c67 25. Ahmed, T. & Butler,I. J. (2006) The European Union and Human Rights: An International Law Perspective, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 17 no.4, pp.771-801 26. Deng, J. W., Issacs, J. M. & & Lauffs, A. W. (2010) Step Towards More Individual Privacy Protection in New Tort Liability Law, Baker & McKenzie, http://www.bakermckenzie.com/RRNewTortLiabilityLaw/ Read More