Privacy and the Enactment of Confidentiality - Essay Example

Running head: THE LAW OF CONFIDENTIALITY Privacy and the Enactment of Confidentiality You’re This research focuses on the problems situated around the right to privacy in England. For years it has been assumed that everyone has this endowed right yet cases that have been popping up across England and the UK in particular are beginning to prove otherwise. Therefore this research shows why it is important to have specific laws to protect against an intrusion into privacy by instating Tort laws that show a breach of confidentiality is the same as an intrusion on privacy and therefore can be penalized in the court system. 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. Privacy and Enactment of Confidentiality 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 fallible reason for being broadcasted at all. This is another one of the reasons that she won her case in court. There is a difference in publicizing opinionated material and then publicizing material that is detrimental and adverse to the well-being of the individual involved. In this case the activity of the Paparazzi and the news reporters was way out of line and over stepped the boundaries of the norms considered to be in the statute allowing “freedom of expression” dictated by statute 10 of the Human Rights Act of 1998 (Lamont 2004). It clearly appears that the breach of confidence laws offers ample protection to protect citizens from an intrusion to their personal rights for privacy and it is necessary for it to do so as well. In another case, Reynolds v. Times Newspaper and the English media was another high profile case where the laws seemed to cover the confidentiality of the individual in question (Walker 2004). This case was very similar to Naomi’s and showed that the reputation of individuals is highly important, much more so than allowing for the media to have the right to print what they feel the public should know. Many countries are now developing common law techniques to provide high celebrities and other individuals in prestigious positions the protection they need by expanding upon these common laws, very similar to Confidentiality laws and the right to privacy (Walker 2004). The Reynolds case in itself has had a powered effect upon many UK laws and along with the Campbell case these high profile cases along with others are changing the way the media can expose celebrity people to the general public. Of course it has to be this way if the media can not watch and control their reporters in a respectful manner, which has been pointed out through this research. The UK law has shown that although there is a right to all media sources for societal freedom of expression it can’t be stretched so far as to try and ruin the reputable character of well known celebrities and as has been said, others in prominent positions. It simply is not ethical and even defines why the eavesdropping law was developed all the way back in 1913. The media has to learn the right way and the wrong way to bring news and high profile stories to the public. Overall, the main point is that these laws work well to ensure that the rights of people in general are upheld, not just the celebrities themselves. No one would want the world to know about every private action they engage in and definitely not about someone seeking medical help for an adversity that they are trying to overcome. If Campbell would have wanted that information broadcasted she would have made it public herself and the media should have respected that instead of spying on her from afar (O’Hanlon 2004). This is exactly what led to the breach of confidentiality and the violation to Campbell’s private life. So, as this research has pointed out these various laws are quite reliable and worthwhile to have for everyone who wants to keep certain aspects of their lives secluded and private. It is ok to have freedom of expression but it is not okay to take it to the extremes and to over emphasize a persons private matters in a way that appear strikingly adverse to their character. Without these laws it is quite feasible to assume that there would not be such a thing as “privacy” and “confidentiality”. References Lamont, Duncan. (2004, 1 July). Privacy Confidentiality in England: Courts don’t go West in High Profile Cases, England Proposes to avoid Pitfalls of a Privacy Law Through Strengthening the Law of Confidentiality and a New Human Rights Law Protecting Private Information. Defense Council Journal. O’Hanlon, Kate. (2004, 11 May). Tuesday Law Report: Details of Treatment for Drug Addiction were Private. The Independent Newspaper, 1. Walker, Clive. (2004, 1 November). Defamation Law and Free Speech: Reynolds v. Time Newspapers and the English Media. Vanderbilt Journal of Transitional Law,1. Read More