scholarly journals Documentary reality television's privacy problem

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

<p>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.</p>

scholarly journals Documentary reality television's privacy problem

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

<p>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.</p>

scholarly journals The new intrusion tort: The news media exposed?

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

<p>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.</p>

scholarly journals The new intrusion tort: The news media exposed?

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

<p>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.</p>

scholarly journals The New Intrusion Tort: The News Media Exposed?

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.

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

2017 ◽  
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).

Reasonable expectation of privacy and third-party consent searches.

1991 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy K. Kagehiro ◽  
Ralph B. Taylor ◽  
Alan T. Harland
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

Escaping Reality by Watching Reality TV?

2020 ◽  
pp. 42-56
Author(s):  
Melissa Ames
Keyword(s):  
Reality Television ◽  
Reality Tv ◽  
Surveillance Culture ◽  
Identity Performance ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Television Programs ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
The Social ◽  
Entertainment Products ◽  
Familial Expectations

Chapter Two turns to reality television, exploring three theories of emotion that explain the rise of this televisual genre in the wake of 9/11. A study of the 2000-2010 programming schedule reveals the cultural anxieties with which producers and viewers of these shows (dis)engage. Although often considered superficial, lowbrow entertainment products meant primarily for escapist purposes, this essay argues that reality television programs grapple with important societal concerns: surveillance culture and privacy rights; the pressure of identity performance in the social media era; and shifting social, domestic, and familial expectations for men and women.

Voyeurism

2020 ◽  
pp. 195-224
Author(s):  
Stuart P. Green
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Sexual Misconduct ◽  
Psychological Trauma ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Potential Harm ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
Revenge Porn ◽  
Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy ◽  
Alleged Victim

This chapter considers the offense of voyeurism, where the offender infringes on the complainant’s autonomy by intruding on her sexual privacy without her consent. Rather than ask if the alleged victim expressed actual consent, it will sometimes be appropriate to ask if she gave constructive consent, based on her assuming the risk of some potential harm or wrong. Many victims of voyeurism probably never know that they have been victimized and thus do not suffer the usual sort of psychological trauma that victims of sexual misconduct often endure. Nevertheless, voyeurism clearly involves a serious wrong. In that sense, it constitutes what has been referred to in the criminal law theory literature as a harmless wrong. There is also another conceptual challenge that voyeurism presents. In order for the offense to be committed, the victim must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. But this raises the question of exactly what expectations of privacy should be considered reasonable in a world in which new technologies and new social practices—including social media, smartphones, sexting, and revenge porn—have simultaneously lowered the threshold of what society regards as private while increasing the potential for harm to individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document