Privacy and the Enactment of Confidentiality - Case Study Example

This research focuses on specific issues relative to these concerns. In conclusion it gives validation as to why everyone should be allowed to have a right to privacy regardless of what their status in society is. The basis for this is the fact that it is the only logical resolution to keep there from being so many disagreements between news reporters and high celebrities, as well as the basics such as medical doctors and their patients' right to privacy, etc. In whole the final conclusion is the right to privacy should be incorporated to include every facet of life that a person wants kept private as long as it isn't stepping over any legal boundaries.

For many decades the citizens in England have assumed that they have an impartial right to complete privacy to their private life. Unfortunately this ideal has seemingly been having serious complications since 2002 when one initial case appeared to provoke controversy into this concept. The case Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers changed everyone's position in England on exactly what type of rights to privacy they really are endowed with (Lamont 2004). In this case it was found initially that the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Newspaper in allowing them the ability to report the actions of Campbell but later Campbell continued her arguments that this form of invasion of privacy was against her right to confidentiality and invaded her personal life to the extent that to much information was given to the general public about her comings and goings and personal actions (Lamont 2004).

Because Naomi Campbell won out in the long run, the idea for freedom of expression in the newspapers and other public news source outlets has been quelled and questioned to whether it will be allowed in the future within regard to the extreme way it was conceptualized on in this high profile case. It was the protection of the law situated around Confidentiality that ensured Campbell had the upper hand over MGN, even though initially it seemed she was going to lose her case. In many ways this case helped in guaranteeing that other people would not be up against this same form of invasion into their private life (Lamont 2004).

This form of law is not new in England because historically it can be documented where the law of Confidentiality initially stemmed from. There use to be a law against eavesdropping and the reason it existed was in fact to protect people against false accusations and rumors, the same as the law of Confidentiality is meant to do. Many of these laws have not had to be implemented or used until recently and many people claim this is due to the adversity that the Paparazzi are causing. If they would only accept that there is only so far that they should go when publicizing information about people then there would not be the problem that is in existence today.

Now the Human Rights Act of 1998 also is a form of law that protects the individual privacy rights of citizens. Again, it is not something that would have to be emphasized if the media would simply quell their obnoxious style in gaining information about people, especially high celebrities. Of course Naomi Campbell's rights to keep her recovery treatment in a personal context makes ample sense since no one would want that broadcasted, and logically it really has no