Invasion of privacy remains one of the major social and legal problems today. Where the boundaries between privacy and publicity grow increasingly blurred, individuals and organizations find it difficult to operate with the limits of privacy that are defined and imposed by the legal and ethical norms. Invasion of privacy, on the one hand, is closely associated with the profits which organizations and individuals are likely to earn by using private information for their material purposes. On the other hand, invasion of privacy results in the development of misbalanced legal and ethical atmosphere in society, where neither individuals nor groups can feel absolutely secured from the risks of privacy breach. In the current legal contexts, invasion of privacy can be fairly regarded as the most dangerous, the most effective, the most profitable, and the most problematic form of the public use and distortion of facts, which are obtained through the breach of individual solitude and by exposing the vulnerable individual space to the public eye.
Invasion of Privacy Definition and Discussion
Invasion of privacy is legally defined as the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded (Keenan 2005, p. 11). However, neither the definition of privacy invasion nor the discussion of the major privacy controversies can help define the boundary between publicity and privacy. Although legal definitions of privacy and invasion of privacy make it easier for individuals and groups to protect themselves from unjustified privacy violations, these definitions and these discussions leave many of the current privacy issues unresolved. The problem is in that the definition of privacy is too amorphous and flexible to give individuals 100 guarantee that they can protect themselves from privacy breaches. This is particularly problematic of celebrities and public figures who, because of their position and work, find it difficult and impossible to balance the need for publicity with the need for privacy. While some authors and legal professionals try to deny the relevance of privacy and its significance to individuals and seek to create an impression that there is no privacy at all, others try to shift the balance of responsibility for privacy on those, who are most likely to suffer the consequences of privacy violations in society.
Keenan (2005) writes that privacy is so enormous and amorphous a topic that it is either meaningless or all-consuming (p. 30). Keenan (2005) is confident that privacy undermines the stability of other legal rights, of which freedom of expression is the most important, and that privacy protection either requires incredible costs or works to protect the current masculine hegemony and to benefit men in their desire to preserve their domination over women. However, while the role of privacy in maintaining the stability of masculine dominance in society is questionable, it is clear that the definition of privacy and invasion of privacy remain the objects of continuous legal and social criticism. In light of the existing and emerging problems, the idea of what constitutes invasion of privacy should not be limited to crossing the boundaries of ones individual solitude rather, invasion of privacy should be reconsidered through the prism of sensibilities about what is to be considered private (Keenan, 2005). Needless to say, these sensibilities and criteria of privacy and solitude vary from individual to individual and are different across different population groups, and no universal legal tool has ever been developed to forever resolve the existing conflict between privacy and publicity.
Society keeps to a misbalanced opinion that the protection from invasion of privacy is the direct states obligation. Society members assume that they are not obliged to undertake and use any precautionary measures against potential privacy breaches. This opinion is too distorted and too erroneous to ever help individuals and groups protect their private interests. On the contrary, and like with many other crimes, public awareness of privacy invasion dangers is one of the keys to discouraging criminals and minimizing the incidence of unethical and illegal conduct against individual privacy (Rotfeld, 2009). This is particularly the case of celebrities and public figures who, because of their position and the specificity of their work (which turns publicity into a source of profits), often lose the sense of caution and make it easier for criminals to breach their privacy for the purposes of material or non-material gains.
Invasion of Privacy Advertisement, Press Releases, and Celebrities
Advertising is one of the most frequent discussion topics with respect to invasion of privacy advertisements are the sources of public information and the instruments of significant public influence. As such, advertising can readily become an effective tool of breaching the privacy of those, who are become the primary targets of particular advertising messages. In his short article, Kev Williams (2009) discusses the relevance of email advertising, which has already become the distinctive feature of Gmail email services online. Those who use Gmail and its applications are familiar with this problem whenever users access and use free email services like Gmail, they have no other choice but to read small advertisements that pop out as soon as they type a single or a couple of words in an email message or a chat conversation. That means, on the one hand, that advertising messages are the price you pay for free search, email and other services from companies including Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft (Williams, 2009) and, on the other hand, that email companies scan emails and chat messages searching for key words, which will then appear in small Gmail advertisements.
Here, advertising looks like a potential source of dangers to privacy which, when it comes to the Internet and online environments, is gradually losing its sense. These scanning practices resemble hidden messages, which advertising professionals often use to generate enormous profits (Rotfeld Taylor, 2009). Such messages are too complex and ambiguous to be identified but they represent another form of invasion of privacy, because they govern our choices against our will. Given that any invasion of privacy is associated with the possibility to file a lawsuit against the person or entity that intruded, Williams (2009) will hardly be able to use the information about Gmail advertisements as the subject of another privacy lawsuit, simply because to prove the fact of privacy invasion one should first possess a clear definition of what privacy is the task, which is still far from being fulfilled.
The situation with invasion of privacy is somewhat simpler, when it comes to press releases. The notorious case of the Justice Department, which demanded that records about abortions were made public, became the issue of the major public concern. The Justice Department was either unaware of what constituted the notion of privacy in medicine or was willing to ignore even the basic rules of ethical conduct as a result, the information which had always been considered private, was presented in the form of a press release (Lichtblau, 2004). In that press release the Justice Department, without applying to any specific private information, disclosed medical records of female patients who had undergone abortion procedures that were neither medically justified, nor legal (Lichtblau, 2004). As a consequence, the Justice Department actually confirmed that individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential (Lichtblau, 2004).
For thousands of women who obtained abortions, the press release became a shocking revelation and a violent invasion of their privacy. Although without names or other private information, the fact of releasing those medical records made thousands of women extremely vulnerable to privacy abuse. None of them can any longer feel secure. This is a worrisome sign that the balance of privacy in society shifts toward accepting invasion as a normal legal practice, which can even work as something that benefits society and discloses its vices. In case of the Justice Department, the local and state authorities have obviously gone too far, turning privacy relationships between patients and physicians into a combination of empty words, which neither favor the protection of individual space and solitude nor help society resolve its social issues.
Unfortunately, invasion of privacy is one of the most frequent problems that accompany public figures and celebrities. Due to their public status, they are expected to serve the needs of the public and to place themselves within the public eye. Because every single gesture or move made by a celebrity is considered newsworthy, these very celebrities are the most frequent victims and participants of various privacy invasion scandals. In 2008, Nicolas Sarkozy filed a lawsuit against a former chief of the French police intelligence after allegations about his private life appeared in a news magazine (Spy Agencies, 2008). What was published was actually a set of excerpts from private notebooks of the head of General Intelligence, which contained the details of private life of several leading French politicians (Spy Agencies, 2008). Such cases of invasion of privacy generate a two-fold effect. On the one hand, they pursue the purposes of increased profitability and material gains. On the other hand, they push celebrities to making the best and the most appropriate choice to deny or to confirm the truthfulness of the information that was published about them. In its current state, invasion of privacy has already turned into a game between the two major clans that of mass media and that of the rest of society, including celebrities. Although the latter intentionally expose themselves to the public eye and earn from it, they are all humans and do have the right to be protected from unreasonable and unjustified invasions of their privacy and solitude.
Invasion of privacy is usually defined as the intrusion of ones personal life and space without any just reason, which grants a person whose privacy was breached a legal right to file a lawsuit against intruders. Unfortunately, neither this definition nor the legal and ethical norms of privacy have ever helped to resolve all privacy issues. The concept of privacy remains increasingly subjective and blurred. The boundary between privacy and publicity is extremely vague, especially when it comes to celebrities. Nevertheless, there are cases when invasion of privacy is more than obvious and requires an urgent legal response, because even celebrities, despite their public status, deserve a degree of privacy and solitude, and require solid protection from potential privacy breaches.
Invasion of Privacy Definition and Discussion
Invasion of privacy is legally defined as the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded (Keenan 2005, p. 11). However, neither the definition of privacy invasion nor the discussion of the major privacy controversies can help define the boundary between publicity and privacy. Although legal definitions of privacy and invasion of privacy make it easier for individuals and groups to protect themselves from unjustified privacy violations, these definitions and these discussions leave many of the current privacy issues unresolved. The problem is in that the definition of privacy is too amorphous and flexible to give individuals 100 guarantee that they can protect themselves from privacy breaches. This is particularly problematic of celebrities and public figures who, because of their position and work, find it difficult and impossible to balance the need for publicity with the need for privacy. While some authors and legal professionals try to deny the relevance of privacy and its significance to individuals and seek to create an impression that there is no privacy at all, others try to shift the balance of responsibility for privacy on those, who are most likely to suffer the consequences of privacy violations in society.
Keenan (2005) writes that privacy is so enormous and amorphous a topic that it is either meaningless or all-consuming (p. 30). Keenan (2005) is confident that privacy undermines the stability of other legal rights, of which freedom of expression is the most important, and that privacy protection either requires incredible costs or works to protect the current masculine hegemony and to benefit men in their desire to preserve their domination over women. However, while the role of privacy in maintaining the stability of masculine dominance in society is questionable, it is clear that the definition of privacy and invasion of privacy remain the objects of continuous legal and social criticism. In light of the existing and emerging problems, the idea of what constitutes invasion of privacy should not be limited to crossing the boundaries of ones individual solitude rather, invasion of privacy should be reconsidered through the prism of sensibilities about what is to be considered private (Keenan, 2005). Needless to say, these sensibilities and criteria of privacy and solitude vary from individual to individual and are different across different population groups, and no universal legal tool has ever been developed to forever resolve the existing conflict between privacy and publicity.
Society keeps to a misbalanced opinion that the protection from invasion of privacy is the direct states obligation. Society members assume that they are not obliged to undertake and use any precautionary measures against potential privacy breaches. This opinion is too distorted and too erroneous to ever help individuals and groups protect their private interests. On the contrary, and like with many other crimes, public awareness of privacy invasion dangers is one of the keys to discouraging criminals and minimizing the incidence of unethical and illegal conduct against individual privacy (Rotfeld, 2009). This is particularly the case of celebrities and public figures who, because of their position and the specificity of their work (which turns publicity into a source of profits), often lose the sense of caution and make it easier for criminals to breach their privacy for the purposes of material or non-material gains.
Invasion of Privacy Advertisement, Press Releases, and Celebrities
Advertising is one of the most frequent discussion topics with respect to invasion of privacy advertisements are the sources of public information and the instruments of significant public influence. As such, advertising can readily become an effective tool of breaching the privacy of those, who are become the primary targets of particular advertising messages. In his short article, Kev Williams (2009) discusses the relevance of email advertising, which has already become the distinctive feature of Gmail email services online. Those who use Gmail and its applications are familiar with this problem whenever users access and use free email services like Gmail, they have no other choice but to read small advertisements that pop out as soon as they type a single or a couple of words in an email message or a chat conversation. That means, on the one hand, that advertising messages are the price you pay for free search, email and other services from companies including Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft (Williams, 2009) and, on the other hand, that email companies scan emails and chat messages searching for key words, which will then appear in small Gmail advertisements.
Here, advertising looks like a potential source of dangers to privacy which, when it comes to the Internet and online environments, is gradually losing its sense. These scanning practices resemble hidden messages, which advertising professionals often use to generate enormous profits (Rotfeld Taylor, 2009). Such messages are too complex and ambiguous to be identified but they represent another form of invasion of privacy, because they govern our choices against our will. Given that any invasion of privacy is associated with the possibility to file a lawsuit against the person or entity that intruded, Williams (2009) will hardly be able to use the information about Gmail advertisements as the subject of another privacy lawsuit, simply because to prove the fact of privacy invasion one should first possess a clear definition of what privacy is the task, which is still far from being fulfilled.
The situation with invasion of privacy is somewhat simpler, when it comes to press releases. The notorious case of the Justice Department, which demanded that records about abortions were made public, became the issue of the major public concern. The Justice Department was either unaware of what constituted the notion of privacy in medicine or was willing to ignore even the basic rules of ethical conduct as a result, the information which had always been considered private, was presented in the form of a press release (Lichtblau, 2004). In that press release the Justice Department, without applying to any specific private information, disclosed medical records of female patients who had undergone abortion procedures that were neither medically justified, nor legal (Lichtblau, 2004). As a consequence, the Justice Department actually confirmed that individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential (Lichtblau, 2004).
For thousands of women who obtained abortions, the press release became a shocking revelation and a violent invasion of their privacy. Although without names or other private information, the fact of releasing those medical records made thousands of women extremely vulnerable to privacy abuse. None of them can any longer feel secure. This is a worrisome sign that the balance of privacy in society shifts toward accepting invasion as a normal legal practice, which can even work as something that benefits society and discloses its vices. In case of the Justice Department, the local and state authorities have obviously gone too far, turning privacy relationships between patients and physicians into a combination of empty words, which neither favor the protection of individual space and solitude nor help society resolve its social issues.
Unfortunately, invasion of privacy is one of the most frequent problems that accompany public figures and celebrities. Due to their public status, they are expected to serve the needs of the public and to place themselves within the public eye. Because every single gesture or move made by a celebrity is considered newsworthy, these very celebrities are the most frequent victims and participants of various privacy invasion scandals. In 2008, Nicolas Sarkozy filed a lawsuit against a former chief of the French police intelligence after allegations about his private life appeared in a news magazine (Spy Agencies, 2008). What was published was actually a set of excerpts from private notebooks of the head of General Intelligence, which contained the details of private life of several leading French politicians (Spy Agencies, 2008). Such cases of invasion of privacy generate a two-fold effect. On the one hand, they pursue the purposes of increased profitability and material gains. On the other hand, they push celebrities to making the best and the most appropriate choice to deny or to confirm the truthfulness of the information that was published about them. In its current state, invasion of privacy has already turned into a game between the two major clans that of mass media and that of the rest of society, including celebrities. Although the latter intentionally expose themselves to the public eye and earn from it, they are all humans and do have the right to be protected from unreasonable and unjustified invasions of their privacy and solitude.
Invasion of privacy is usually defined as the intrusion of ones personal life and space without any just reason, which grants a person whose privacy was breached a legal right to file a lawsuit against intruders. Unfortunately, neither this definition nor the legal and ethical norms of privacy have ever helped to resolve all privacy issues. The concept of privacy remains increasingly subjective and blurred. The boundary between privacy and publicity is extremely vague, especially when it comes to celebrities. Nevertheless, there are cases when invasion of privacy is more than obvious and requires an urgent legal response, because even celebrities, despite their public status, deserve a degree of privacy and solitude, and require solid protection from potential privacy breaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment