The new intrusion tort: The news media exposed?

10.26686/wgtn.17006806.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

◽

Thomas Levy McKenzie

Keyword(s):

News Media ◽

Common Law ◽

Privacy Rights ◽

Public Concern ◽

Reasonable Expectation ◽

Private Space ◽

Individual Privacy ◽

One Step ◽

Formed Part ◽

Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

In C v Holland, Whata J recognised that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion formed part of New Zealand’s common law. The tort protects against intentional intrusions into a person’s private space. This decision potentially exposes the news media to tortious liability when it engages in intrusive newsgathering practices. However, Whata J’s decision provides little guidance as to how the tort should be applied in later cases. In order to ascertain the meaning of the tort’s formulation, this essay draws upon the methods used, both in New Zealand and internationally, to prevent the news media from breaching individual privacy rights. It then suggests that the courts should replace the formulation with a one-step reasonable expectation of privacy test. It also argues that the legitimate public concern defence should be better tailored to the intrusion context. Finally, it briefly assesses how the intrusion tort should interact with the tort in Hosking v Runting. Ultimately, it concludes that, in future, the courts should reflect more carefully on the precise wording of the intrusion tort’s formulation so that it best vindicates the interests that it was designed to protect.

Download Full-text

The New Intrusion Tort: The News Media Exposed?

Victoria University of Wellington Law Review ◽

10.26686/vuwlr.v45i1.4968 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 45 (1) ◽

pp. 79

Author(s):

Thomas Levy McKenzie

Keyword(s):

News Media ◽

Common Law ◽

Privacy Rights ◽

Public Concern ◽

Reasonable Expectation ◽

Private Space ◽

Individual Privacy ◽

One Step ◽

Formed Part ◽

Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

In C v Holland, Whata J recognised that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion formed part of New Zealand's common law. The tort protects against intentional intrusions into a person's private space. This decision potentially exposes the news media to tortious liability when it engages in intrusive newsgathering practices. However, Whata J's decision provides little guidance as to how the tort should be applied in later cases. In order to ascertain the meaning of the tort's formulation, this article draws upon the methods used, both in New Zealand and internationally, to prevent the news media from breaching individual privacy rights. It then suggests that the courts should replace the formulation with a one-step reasonable expectation of privacy test. It also argues that the legitimate public concern defence should be better tailored to the intrusion context. Finally, it briefly assesses how the intrusion tort should interact with the privacy tort in Hosking v Runting. Ultimately, it concludes that, in future, the courts should reflect more carefully on the precise wording of the intrusion tort's formulation so that it best vindicates the interests that it was designed to protect.

Download Full-text

Documentary reality television's privacy problem

10.26686/wgtn.17148893 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

◽

Kent Newman

Keyword(s):

Life Events ◽

Reality Television ◽

Privacy Rights ◽

Public Authorities ◽

Reasonable Expectation ◽

Active Involvement ◽

Significant Life ◽

Privacy Problem ◽

Television Formats ◽

Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

Documentary reality television is hugely successful. The genre, which includes shows like Police Ten 7, Coastwatch and Border Patrol, consistently outperforms other television formats and fills free-to-air television schedules. In these shows ride-along film crews and body-worn cameras record agencies as they go about their tasks. Often these agencies are public authorities and their tasks are statutory functions. The purpose of this paper is to examine the genre’s privacy implications. It concludes that the genre is systemically unlawful. It is unlawful because it breaches the privacy rights of involuntary participants. The paper considers the privacy implications by examining the genre against the shared features of the publication tort and the Privacy Broadcasting Standard. Both of these consider that it is a breach of privacy to broadcast material subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy, where that broadcast is highly offensive unless there is an applicable defence. While the material broadcast represents the work of agencies, it also represents the personal stories of everyday people going about their lives. Often the moments captured are significant life events and intimate moments for those people. By agreeing to contribute to the genre, agencies agree to broadcast these life events without the active involvement of the participants. Research has also found that this is often occurring without informed consent. While the focus of this paper is on the private law implications of the genre, it identifies that some public authorities’ involvement in the genre may also be ultra vires. The paper finishes by considering why, if the genre is systemically unlawful, people are not suing. It considers that general issues with access to civil justice and the powers of the Broadcasting Standards Authority stand in the way of potential complainants. It finishes by considering some solutions that could improve the situation.

Download Full-text

The New Privacy Battle: How the Expanding Use of Drones Continues to Erode Our Concept of Privacy and Privacy Rights

Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law and Policy ◽

10.5195/tlp.2013.123 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 13 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Chris Schlag

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Consumer Protection ◽

Privacy Protection ◽

Common Law ◽

The United States ◽

Third Parties ◽

Privacy Rights ◽

Individual Privacy ◽

Consumer Protection Act ◽

Technological Developments

The exciting, thriving and developing technology that everybody has been talking about recently is drones. Due to recent technological developments, which make drones an affordable and universal tool, drones have expanded out of military use and into domestic applications. The enactment of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act in 2012 further pushed for the development and expansion of drone use in the United States’ airspace, by requiring the FAA to license over 30,000 drone operators. While drone use has an unlimited potential for beneficial use within society, drone technology is not without risks. For example, drone use in domestic airspace raises the significant and undeniable risk of individual privacy invasions through the use of drones by both public entities and third parties. This article argues current common law and legislative protections of potential privacy invasions resulting from drone use are drastically insufficient as neither affords strong protection of an individual’s privacy from such sophisticated technology’s potential. The article concludes by recommending a federal baseline consumer protection act that would establish a reasonable level of protection for an individual’s privacy by ensuring drone use was being monitored from a privacy protection standpoint and limiting the use of drones in a way that would invade an individual’s privacy expectations.

Download Full-text

Documentary reality television's privacy problem

10.26686/wgtn.17148893.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

◽

Kent Newman

Keyword(s):

Life Events ◽

Reality Television ◽

Privacy Rights ◽

Public Authorities ◽

Reasonable Expectation ◽

Active Involvement ◽

Significant Life ◽

Privacy Problem ◽

Television Formats ◽

Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

Documentary reality television is hugely successful. The genre, which includes shows like Police Ten 7, Coastwatch and Border Patrol, consistently outperforms other television formats and fills free-to-air television schedules. In these shows ride-along film crews and body-worn cameras record agencies as they go about their tasks. Often these agencies are public authorities and their tasks are statutory functions. The purpose of this paper is to examine the genre’s privacy implications. It concludes that the genre is systemically unlawful. It is unlawful because it breaches the privacy rights of involuntary participants. The paper considers the privacy implications by examining the genre against the shared features of the publication tort and the Privacy Broadcasting Standard. Both of these consider that it is a breach of privacy to broadcast material subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy, where that broadcast is highly offensive unless there is an applicable defence. While the material broadcast represents the work of agencies, it also represents the personal stories of everyday people going about their lives. Often the moments captured are significant life events and intimate moments for those people. By agreeing to contribute to the genre, agencies agree to broadcast these life events without the active involvement of the participants. Research has also found that this is often occurring without informed consent. While the focus of this paper is on the private law implications of the genre, it identifies that some public authorities’ involvement in the genre may also be ultra vires. The paper finishes by considering why, if the genre is systemically unlawful, people are not suing. It considers that general issues with access to civil justice and the powers of the Broadcasting Standards Authority stand in the way of potential complainants. It finishes by considering some solutions that could improve the situation.

Download Full-text

Tessling, Brown, and A.M.: Towards a Principled Approach to Section 8

Alberta Law Review ◽

10.29173/alr381 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

William MacKinnon

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Historical Development ◽

Search And Seizure ◽

Reasonable Expectation ◽

Section 8 ◽

Individual Privacy ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

This article analyzes the Supreme Court of Canada's search-and-seizure jurisprudence in anticipation of the Court's forthcoming decisions on the admissibility of evidence obtained by police dog searches in Brown and A.M. After reviewing the historical development of s. 8, the author then goes on to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Court's analysis of sense-enhancing aids and the reasonable expectation of privacy' in Tessling. The article ultimately argues that the Court ought to eschew a case-by-case model for establishing the existence of areasonable expectation of privacy, and go beyond the facts of Brown and A.M. in order to adopt a more principled approach to s. 8. The author maintains that a more principled approach is necessary because stale actors need clearer guidance if they are to successfully balance individual privacy with the use of sense enhancing aids.

Download Full-text

PRIVACY IN PUBLIC PLACES

The Cambridge Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s0008197306007240 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 65 (3) ◽

pp. 606-635 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

N.A. Moreham

Keyword(s):

Public Space ◽

Common Law ◽

Medical Attention ◽

Public Place ◽

Public Places ◽

Reasonable Expectation ◽

European Court ◽

House Of Lords ◽

The Common ◽

Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

ONE of the most difficult questions facing English courts as they develop the common law right to privacy recognised by the House of Lords in Campbell v. MGN Ltd. is whether and, if so, when a person might have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. Should an individual have a cause of action if she is photographed as she leaves her mother’s funeral or as he receives medical attention after an accident? Or should there be an absolute rule which says that there is no privacy in a public space? Recent decisions in England and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) suggest that it is no longer an answer (if it ever was) simply to say that the disclosure concerned something which took place in public. A more difficult question therefore remains: if the existence of a privacy interest does not depend on the nature of the space in which claimants find themselves, how do we determine whether a person does have a legitimate privacy interest?

Download Full-text

Systematic Government Access to Private-Sector Data in the United States II

10.1093/oso/9780190685515.003.0009 ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Fred H. Cate ◽

Beth E. Cate

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Private Sector ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

The United States ◽

Freedom Of Information ◽

Privacy Rights ◽

Reasonable Expectation ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Us ◽

Sector Data

This chapter covers the US Supreme Court’s position on access to private-sector data in the United States. Indeed, the Supreme Court has written a great deal about “privacy” in a wide variety of contexts. These include what constitutes a “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution; privacy rights implicit in, and also in tension with, the First Amendment and freedom of expression; privacy rights the Court has found implied in the Constitution that protect the rights of adults to make decisions about activities such as reproduction, contraception, and the education of their children; and the application of the two privacy exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Download Full-text