Should There Be a Legal Right to Privacy in Australia - Essay Example

Australia Needs Legal Rights on Privacy Introduction Privacy rights are probably among the very fundamental rights in the life of human beings. Concealing of one’s particular information without the clear consent, lies under the components of breach of civil rights and civil liberties. Privacy rights are basic in determining the kind of information an individual would prefer to be released and shared in the public. Privacy rights are issues of disturbing concern across the entire world. It is important to note that privacy rights keep on transforming with advancing time and technology thus should never be ignored in any development oriented society (Kinley, 275). One of the countries adversely hit by the issues of privacy rights is Australia. For a long time Australia has been mentioned as lacking substantial laws that draw the lines of privacy rights in the society of Australia. With great upsurge of cases that breach privacy rights of human beings, Australia has been relying on amended acts in the constitution and the Commonwealth privacy guidelines. In the real sense, Australia needs to have well defined and elaborate privacy rights in order to safeguard its citizens from the continued abuse of personal rights through the internet. Laws governing the privacy rights in Australia need to be formulated especially in the wake of advancing technology to control the use of technological devices and systems in crushing the rights of other people. One disheartening case involving the breach of privacy rights occurred in the media reports confirming an incident where a man used mobile phone cameras to capture images of naked women in the changing rooms in a fashion store (Donaldson 1). The dire of need for laws governing privacy rights can also be seen excavated from the case of an Australian pop musician named Sapphire who uploaded into the internet nude photos of National Rugby League player by the name Stewart Hamilton whom he happened to date for about two years. The release of the nude photos into the social sites of the internet was done without due consent of Stewart thereby raising questions as to the eligibility of the actions in line with the contemporary human rights. In this case it was analyzed that the criminal misused unregulated technology of computers to abuse fundamental rights of the uninformed women. Donaldson (1) reports that the criminal who captured the images of naked women without official assent was charged with filming for indecent reasons rather invasion of privacy. This ruling did not mean that the event never showed elements of breach of privacy rights, but it took that direction due to lack of substantial privacy laws that be used to convict an individual. Another case that raised eye brows seeking to the establishment of clear privacy laws involved a businessman by the name Dirk Bowker who was late for flight from Townsville to Canberra. As a custom at the airports, Dirk had to line-up for security checkup before proceeding to the boarding gate. Since he was late for the journey, he opted to go for X-ray scanning that tended to be much quicker than other methods. It happened that X-rays scanners produce electronic images showing the naked body of passengers that is only viewed by a special security officer in a closed room. On realizing the nature of procedure underwent at airport, Dirk got frustrated and planned to sue the airport authorities for having exposed his nude during frisk. This issue carried with it some levels of confusion considering the fact that the passengers privacy rights were disclosed and that the airport officials were also performing their duty of ensuring air security and that it was accomplished with full consent of the Dirk. This has therefore imposed alarms to the legislatures to structure laws that show clear lines and acts that need to be considered as invasions into privacy rights of individuals so as to avoid uncertainty over the convictable cases regarded as breach to people’s privacy rights. Another case concerning alarm on the privacy rights of Australian’s when a police officer in the rural department opted to abandon the usual breath test of alcohol consumed by drivers on transit with calms that the breath test gadget had numerous eras. The Queensland police officer therefore directed for blood sample of a particular driver thought to drive under the influence of alcohol. Blood tests provide accurate levels of alcohol while at the same time revealing certain private information of an individual. The fact that personal information were disclosed without strategic awareness of the driver, hauled civil liberty groups to threaten to sue the police officers for breaching the privacy of the driver. Now that this case involved enactment of security and safety laws, it was confusing as to which directions and measures could the civil liberty groups take. This confusion explicitly arose due lack of well-defined laws covering privacy rights in Australia. The lawmakers in Australia need to formulate proper jurisdictions that spell out the real situations where privacy rights of individuals can be compromised to avoid reasonless scrambles among various forces. Privacy laws have a clear definition under the United States jurisdictions. US constitution clear spells out the cover up of events presumed as valid to tort as regards the privacy rights. The US torts on privacy rights acts on occasions where one makes an intentional intrusion of either physical or other forms into seclusion of another or his private affairs. If such kind of intrusion poses high offense for a reasonable person then the aggressor is liable to execution on the basis of invasion into another person’s private life (Commonwealth 16). The US privacy rights also brings into liability of any individual who uses the likeliness, name or picture of another person to obtain particular benefits. In such a case, the criminal is convicted with charges of invasion into other another person’s rights. The US Constitution on privacy rights is very explicit and defines that anyone who publishes matters concerning other people and present it in a false manner, is eligible to conviction under the charges of invasion into ones’ private life. Commonwealth (16) indicates that the tort of privacy under the US jurisdictions relies on the defenses that are similar to US defamation (Commonwealth 16). Applicable defense strategies in accomplishing a tort under the US Constitution encompass absolute parliamentary and court privileges, consent and conditional privileges over reporting public views and reasonable claims against the defendant. The common laws under the US jurisdictions allows plaintiffs in recovery of damaged integrity under three basics that involve harm cause by loss of privacy, mental distress and any cause for special damages (Commonwealth ). In the reports of Commonwealth (17), UK jurisdictions have no common law tort of invasion of privacy. However, UK law has extended the cause of action to cover conviction of wrongful dissemination of private information. In applying determining the validity of tort under the UK jurisdictions, the courts first confirms whether the information disclosed is private as enshrined in the Article 8 of the constitution. Cause of action under the UK laws mature only after determination of whether the plaintiff had reasonably expected certain levels of privacy in relation to the disclosed information. In addition, a cause of action takes line after measurement of public views and interest as concerns the human rights. The nature of defense over privacy rights rely upon the consent of the judges and qualified privilege defamation. The UK jurisdictions on privacy rights allow awards for breach of private information only when the court proves the presence of tort of trespass. According to Commonwealth (21), the New Zealand laws provide for determination of cause of action as the court carries on with scrutiny of the case. The New Zealand laws extend tort to wrongful disclosure of private information. In order for a claim of privacy right to be successfully accredited under the New Zealand laws, there must be approved breach of particular rights of which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation for enclosure. In addition, there must be particular publicity of the private facts that are considered as highly offensive to a reasonable person (Commonwealth 21). New Zealand jurisprudence on the privacy rights lends defense of privacy on the public concern in order to ensure that protection of privacy do not exceed the limits of freedom of expression in a democratic society. For instance, the case of Hosking v Runting heard in the Supreme Court faced numerous questions on the tort as applied by the judges prescribing over the case. The determination of tort or cause of action on particular privacy invasions in Australia has faced juristic transformation since 1937 on the hearing oaf case between Victoria Park and Racing Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor. In this case, the court found out that there was no breach of privacy that could get approval of the Australian constitution. In 2001, during the hearing of the ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd, the court departed disregarded the ruling made in the Victoria Park and resolved that the case at hand called for cause of action on the invasion of privacy as per the common laws (Commonwealth 13). Another case heard between Grosse v Purvis in the Queensland District Court dissolved with the disposition that indeed there was a breach of privacy rights after the court found out that the defendant intervened the privacy of rights of the plaintiff for a long time (Commonwealth 13). In the Gross case, the judge declared for compensation of the plaintiff over the damages as relates to the actionable right of an individual person’s privacy. In another case heard in the County Court of Victoria concerning Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation found out that the defendant had breached the privacy rights of the plaintiff after having reported the sexual assault succumbed by the plaintiff. In passing the judgment, the court referred to the Section 4 (1A) of the Judicial Proceeding Reports Act 1958 (Vic) upon which tort of invasion into privacy rights was declared and defendant asked to compensate the plaintiff over the disclosure of privacy (Commonwealth 14). In another case involving Giller v Procopets heard in the Victoria Supreme Court found out breach of confidence after Mr. Procopets deliberately released video tapes with recordings of sexual intercourse with his disputed wife Ms Giller. The court made the ruling after determining that there was abuse of information privacy rights of the plaintiff especially when the employer and the family members of Giller got notification of the videos. Rights to privacy at a certain extent are obnoxious and unhealthy for the security of a nation and operations of judicial systems. Bagaric and Doyle mention that paying great consideration to privacy rights and applying it in resolving every offensive use of personal information will make privacy and invasion of privacy sway every other rights of action like discrimination and taxation in appeals in certain cases. Bagaric and Doyle explicitly highlight that over recognition of privacy rights in Australia will transform privacy into remedies with reduced capability to settle cases in balance with plaintiffs’ claims (36). Furthermore, introduction of broad privacy right will dispel Australia under a condition of insecurity where criminals and terrorists carry successful harm acts without public alert (Bagaric and Doyle 36). Moreover, recognizing privacy rights in Australia will be like a shelter for individuals to perfect their shameful actions. Bagaric and Doyle ascertain that allowing information privacy rights in Australia will enclose more individualistic information thereby enabling particular individuals misrepresent themselves to the public (44). Privacy rights are risky for any nation including Australia as the rights may be applied by particular persons to cherish their criminal desire within the societies. Supporting privacy rights in Australia will also deter with police investigations over crime allegations by carrying DNA tests to identify a criminal and understand any criminal history attached to the suspect (Bagaric and Doyle 44). Though the use of surveillance devices like cameras and CCTVs discloses the privacy of individuals, they play a great role in comforting citizens by unveiling security threats. Work cited Bagaric, Mirko and Doyle, Carolyn. Privacy law in Australia, 2005. Sydney; Federation Press. Print. Commonwealth of Australia. A Commonwealth Statutory Cause of Action for Serious Invasion of Privacy. Web, 2011. Retrieved November 5, 2011 from http://www.academia-research.com/filecache/instr/i/s/589498_issues_paper_cth_stat_cause_action_serious_invasion_privacy.pdf Donaldson, Morgan. Do Australians have a legal right to privacy? Web, 2005. Retrieved November 5, 2011 from http://www.academia-research.com/filecache/instr/d/o/589498_do_australians_have_a_legal_right_to_privacy.pdf Kinley, David. Human rights in Australian law: principles, practice and potential, 1998. Sydney; Federation Press. Print. Summary of Judgment: Giller v Procopets [2008] VSCA 236. Web, 2008. Retrieved November 5, 2011 from http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Supreme+Court/resources/c/0/c0c192004056ddbb9acbbae505682c73/Giller.pdf Read More