I commend you, Loreena for your courage and for protecting your privacy rights. I was really quite angry that someone felt that there was something to gain in infringing on the rights of another person. That it was their duty or right to share information that was not granted the permission to do so. It is sad that some individuals choose this act of contravention for their own purposes. And it is unfortunate that they do not appreciate another person’s feelings or personal trials and tribulations that were not to be revealed, especially without their consent. They are private. I pray that Ms. Ash comes to understand the value of one’s own personal life lived and the emotions stirred when someone else defies it. Maybe she will also come to know that friendship is far more valuable than any figure presented on a page.
On a lighter note, it gives me consolation that people stand up against the injustice of the infringement on individual privacy. I know that there is still a fight to be had, but it is good to know that it will not be tolerated. Loreena, we stand behind you. I support you wholeheartedly.
Blessings, Lizjul
Posts: 209 | Location: Westchester, New York | Registered: April 17, 2008
Loreena, thank you for your inspiration and courage.
Warm regards, Shan-Lyn[/QUOTE
Excellent article Shan-Lyn! I agree totally that personel privacy should be upheld and hope everyone gets a chance to read your article. I think about the perverse poopaRATsy following Britany Spears around as an extreme example of invasion of privacy. More laws are needed such as California's “anti-stalkerazzi” law which allows celebrities to sue anyone who invades their privacy. If we all "E-mail your article to a friend" perhaps the word will get out especially regarding Loreena's plight!
Robert
Posts: 17 | Location: Danvers, Ma | Registered: March 18, 2007
Has anyone ever seen the cartoon about A secret agent that was followed by A harp that could talk.My memory is rather sketchy yet sean connery was the agent voice and the harp was A girls voice.It ran for A season and they took it off the air cause they were'nt fair to sean concerning the plots of the stories.This would be A great valentine gift to loreena,I think you would get A good laugh.It was sort of like blues clues yet much better.Have A happy love you loreena.wizard
Originally posted by Mark: Hello Message Board folk,
As some of you may be aware, on October 4, 2007 a settlement was reached in the McKennitt/Ash privacy case and the press release concerning this development can be found at the following link: McKennitt Privacy Case Ends - Press Release
Many of you have been very supportive of Loreena during this past couple of years and she is deeply appreciative of that support. We also realise that some people have had questions and concerns regarding this case and we are seeking the most appropriate method of addressing these.
Since it is vital that all discussions are focused on the analysis of the case and its broader implications rather than on Ms Ash personally, we would invite concerned readers to write us at postmaster@quinlanroad.com as we intend to collate and address these concerns in a more general way. Those wanting to leave letters of support are invited to either leave them on this message board or send them to Postmaster.
For your convenience we invite interested readers to familiarize themselves with the judgments of Justice Eady of November 2005 and the Court of Appeal of November 2006 which can be found in the UK privacy case section of this QR web site. In so far as a property dispute plays a central role to understanding the privacy case, we would encourage readers to consider this section in particular. It can be found in paragraphs 106-128 .
We are also aware that this case has caused much concern among some journalists and media who suggest this case has been a blow to freedom of expression. Loreena has most recently addressed this issue on a blog site of the UK Guardian writer Roy Greenslade at this link. Loreena’s comments are found in the comments section following his blog.
Other comments by Loreena regarding the media’s approach to this story can be found on our comments page which includes Loreena’s open letter to the Canadian Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders in January, 2007 entitled, “Who Watches the Watchdog?”
We thank everyone who has taken an interest in this case and has offered us their thoughts.
Posts: 1 | Location: Greenville, South Carolina | Registered: February 12, 2008
Originally posted by angie: I just read this on the CNN homepage. It's a new proposed "Britney's Law" about limiting paparazzi access to celebrities. You can read the whole bit, including commentary, here:
Thanks for sharing this Angie. I was reading something to this effect earlier today.
Rather interesting to note, that the 'key word' here is "Taxpayers".
Is this what it will take? For "taxpayers" to complain? On the other side of the wall, something seriously needs to be done about the "First Amendment Rights". Indeed, it's a 'slippery road' to walk on.
Aye, the laws are clashing... another fine example of loopholes in the system. May the better 'law' win. There are too many 'fine lines' here. Something needs a change.
As I've always stipulated, "If rules destroy, then they weren't meant to exist, but rather to be modified to a more realistic situation".
I just read this on the CNN homepage. It's a new proposed "Britney's Law" about limiting paparazzi access to celebrities. You can read the whole bit, including commentary, here:
Originally posted by Anxious 2: Hi I am not sure this can be compared to what happened to ms. McKennitt...
I just got a little uppset. I read in the newspaper, that some people start taking pictures of a person they see on the street. Then put it on the net and write a few comments on how the pictured person look. Then other people sees it and reply on the coment. Some even know the person, and add other pictures and comments. The person exposed isn't necessarily aware of this. I think it is a very cruel thing to start bully people like this. And I think it is very unfortunate because this person has no chance on Earth to defend him- or herself. He or she might not even be like discribed. And it will be very hard to brake down thise rumours. Especially if they are malicious!
Well. This is truly an insult to human privacy!
Anxious 2
Hi Anxious 2,
I think the people that do this don't see they are being cruel, they are so self-absorbed and lacking in compassion for others feelings that they think it's just good fun. One could never get away with printing something like that in the newspaper or a magazine without being sued, it should be the same for the internet.
Mona
Posts: 137 | Location: Minnesota | Registered: August 12, 2007
Loreena here. I realise there may still be questions in some people’s minds about what actually went on in this case because of how it was presented by some media and various individuals, including by Ms Ash herself. This particular misrepresentation of facts has a resonance of a ‘numbers optics’ game in order to create a particular impression of the outcome. Another and more accurate way of presenting the outcome in this case was that the judge found nearly one half of the book breached my privacy.
Briefly, the situation is as follows and interested individuals can follow along in the trial judgment itself if they like.
In cases like these, the legal process obliges individuals such as myself who have a legal complaint, to specifically list those complaints, no matter how large or small.
In this case there were ‘38’ complaints and some of those complaints were as small as one or two sentences, while others represented many pages, such as the sections of the book discussing my bereavement or the details of a private property dispute. The complaints were then grouped into five main categories listed in paragraph 11 of the judgment.
Although Ms. Ash and some media framed it such that I ‘lost’ on more points than I ‘won’, in actual fact the volume of material found by the judge to be intrusive was tantamount to nearly one half of the book. The sections which covered the greatest volume of pages were those which had to do with my bereavement and a property dispute in which Ms Ash was found to have adjusted witness statements (para 106-128). Both subjects were found to be private and to have served no public interest (as opposed to be ‘interesting to the public”) and were therefore indefensible.
So in the end, the reporting became an optics/numbers game which many savvy individuals like to play in creating the impressions they want in order to serve their needs.
With regards to the points on which I did not succeed these were considered too ‘anodyne’ (trivial) to have the quality of private or confidential information. This was an interesting aspect of the judgment and has caused me to reflect on the various capacities and qualities of privacy. Indeed, the UK Court of Appeal (who also heard this case) stated in their judgment that there were some areas of Justice Eady’s original decision where they themselves might have gone further to protect my privacy.
Privacy has many dimensions and one of them, in my opinion, is to live one’s life simply without undo and relentless observation, even and especially, if what you are doing is quite mundane. Most people, who are buffered by their anonymity, will not have had to worry about this quite yet. It is only now with the convergence of technology like cameras in phones and the internet, that I think the average ‘anonymous’ person’s privacy is about to be invaded at a level and intensity that up to now has primarily been experienced only by ‘well-known’ people.’ And it may be that only when ‘anonymous folk’ have their privacy infringed upon through relentless observation that the law will ultimately catch up.
We must not forget that there is great commercial pressure put on an unsuspecting public by a range of media (Google, Facebook, Myspace, as well as regular ‘news’ outlets) to trade in this kind of ‘information’ as a commodity. I would urge people to take time to learn more about the implications of their on-line activities, not only for the well-being of our social structure, but quite importantly, for themselves.
This in turn raises other thorny issues such as security cameras and the like for which I believe a robust and transparent public debate must be undertaken in order to allow the public to agree or disagree with the need for constant surveillance in order to protect their society. But that’s a discussion for another day.
Just a little food for thought.
Sorry for the length of this response and I hope it helps.
Loreena
I'm presently writing an article on "Privacy vs. Non-Privacy". This has been way over-due. I think the lessening of 'construction renovation' is finally allowing me more concentration.
Loreena, I hear you well inbetween the lines here. I think you pretty well much know how I stand on this issue as well. With your permission I'd like to include you as a brief example of your plight w/ privacy, contrasting with other examples in our societal structure, with the latter examples perhaps appearing far-fetched, but I've certainly done my research and it's uncanny how many examples can be summoned in the way of privacy invasion.
At present, I'm proofreading what I've written thus far, and have decided to let a few days go by to see if more details can be included.
I'll include the link when the article is refined and published.
Hi I am not sure this can be compared to what happened to ms. McKennitt...
I just got a little uppset. I read in the newspaper, that some people start taking pictures of a person they see on the street. Then put it on the net and write a few comments on how the pictured person look. Then other people sees it and reply on the coment. Some even know the person, and add other pictures and comments. The person exposed isn't necessarily aware of this. I think it is a very cruel thing to start bully people like this. And I think it is very unfortunate because this person has no chance on Earth to defend him- or herself. He or she might not even be like discribed. And it will be very hard to brake down thise rumours. Especially if they are malicious!
Well. This is truly an insult to human privacy!
Anxious 2
Posts: 919 | Location: Denmark | Registered: January 25, 2008
Originally posted by bodhronii: Well, I find the whole thing very unfortunate.
However I do have a sincere question. Why doesn't anybody post that only 8 sections of the book were banned and not the entire 38? I have read many of the objections were trivial.
I think the point has been obscured by a perception of degrees of "importance". In the end, it really doesn't matter whether anyone else deems something "trivial". What may seem trivial to one is entirely something else to others. Who determines the degree of triviality? A trust was broken...and in this case...a personal and a legal trust. Personal privacy is important to all of us. Even the most trivial (in others' eyes) events in one's personal life are theirs. For someone to take my personal information and parade it before the public is a violation....not unlike the violation one feels when their home is invaded by thieves. Even though nothing may have been physically taken, the violation remains. It is unfortunate....unfortunate that we, "famous" or not famous, have to rigidly protect our privacy from those who would so easily disregard it. Unfortunately, it is the way of the world these days.
Originally posted by Loreena: I realise there may still be questions in some people’s minds about what actually went on in this case because of how it was presented by some media and various individuals, including by Ms Ash herself.
Yes, what I have actually noted is that so many people have felt entitled to speak about the case, the judgements, friendship, freedom of expression, privacy, non privacy and many, many other subjects. Everyone has told their opinions, not only people who have introduced themselves as Ms Ash’s close friends, but even a great number of journalists or “supposed” journalists who have feared limitations to press freedom. Everyone has their own perspectives and things change when observed from different angles, but what “privacy” means shouldn’t be subject to interpretation. Hence I don’t agree with their viewpoints, unlike I trust you and support your standpoint; if only should I be in your shoes, be sure that I would think about it exactly like you.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Loreena: With regards to the points on which I did not succeed these were considered too ‘anodyne’ (trivial) to have the quality of private or confidential information.[QUOTE]
The main issue here is in fact just Ms Ash’s breach of confidence, that in any cases I consider unacceptable, even if she reveals so-called “anodyne” details; nothing is anodyne, but subject of confidence between two close friends. It’s unacceptable purely simple. She has written a book without your permission and permission of the person about whom she wanted to tell is what she should have sought, before beginning to write the first word. Aside from your so-much-awaited victory, privacy must still fight to protect itself, though. It’s sad and disappointing. Privacy is, however, misunderstood or it's not a priority in people's minds anymore. Unlike I believe firmly that what happens within your home, with your friends and family, what is said on the phone etc belongs to you only, even though it’s trivial. No one has the right to tell, but you. Is the book’s title trivial too? I think that it should have been the first ‘section’ which needed banning. It’s so clear Ms Ash’s purpose by now, that is discrediting you and damaging your public image through bad publicity. Some months ago I found out an article she wrote herself. In my case it’s the one declaration of hers I have had the chance to read, but it’s enough. I think that every word she uses is carefully chosen by her, in order to depict a person (you) who is currently very different from who you were before fame and money. She, the victim who was “immensely fond of you” and you, “the aggressive boss who yelled at her and her partner”. Unfortunately some believe this is the truth. I have recently stopped by one of many messageboards you can find on internet and read some postings which went: “…yes, really good music, but not the person as well”; “some say she is not as sweet as she looks like. Globalization of information has this kind of effect that she is surely aware of. I am satisfied with your victory, and I sincerely think that it's right that everything concerning you has been banned, because you have never given her any permission to write, and so any discussion, such as “this is confidential, this is anodyne” is simply unjust and ridiculous.
Kisses to you
freesoul This message has been edited. Last edited by: freesoul,
Posts: 531 | Location: italy | Registered: November 01, 2007
I agree with you,Loreena...I think you grasped the problem fully..it must have been hurtful for you to find out that someone so close to you deceives you overnight. Privacy has to be guaranteed. Yours Sincerely, Gianni-Italy.
Posts: 335 | Location: Italy-Abruzzo | Registered: June 06, 2007
Originally posted by bodhronii: Well, I find the whole thing very unfortunate.
However I do have a sincere question. Why doesn't anybody post that only 8 sections of the book were banned and not the entire 38? I have read many of the objections were trivial.
Loreena here. I realise there may still be questions in some people’s minds about what actually went on in this case because of how it was presented by some media and various individuals, including by Ms Ash herself. This particular misrepresentation of facts has a resonance of a ‘numbers optics’ game in order to create a particular impression of the outcome. Another and more accurate way of presenting the outcome in this case was that the judge found nearly one half of the book breached my privacy.
Briefly, the situation is as follows and interested individuals can follow along in the trial judgment itself if they like.
In cases like these, the legal process obliges individuals such as myself who have a legal complaint, to specifically list those complaints, no matter how large or small.
In this case there were ‘38’ complaints and some of those complaints were as small as one or two sentences, while others represented many pages, such as the sections of the book discussing my bereavement or the details of a private property dispute. The complaints were then grouped into five main categories listed in paragraph 11 of the judgment.
Although Ms. Ash and some media framed it such that I ‘lost’ on more points than I ‘won’, in actual fact the volume of material found by the judge to be intrusive was tantamount to nearly one half of the book. The sections which covered the greatest volume of pages were those which had to do with my bereavement and a property dispute in which Ms Ash was found to have adjusted witness statements (para 106-128). Both subjects were found to be private and to have served no public interest (as opposed to be ‘interesting to the public”) and were therefore indefensible.
So in the end, the reporting became an optics/numbers game which many savvy individuals like to play in creating the impressions they want in order to serve their needs.
With regards to the points on which I did not succeed these were considered too ‘anodyne’ (trivial) to have the quality of private or confidential information. This was an interesting aspect of the judgment and has caused me to reflect on the various capacities and qualities of privacy. Indeed, the UK Court of Appeal (who also heard this case) stated in their judgment that there were some areas of Justice Eady’s original decision where they themselves might have gone further to protect my privacy.
Privacy has many dimensions and one of them, in my opinion, is to live one’s life simply without undo and relentless observation, even and especially, if what you are doing is quite mundane. Most people, who are buffered by their anonymity, will not have had to worry about this quite yet. It is only now with the convergence of technology like cameras in phones and the internet, that I think the average ‘anonymous’ person’s privacy is about to be invaded at a level and intensity that up to now has primarily been experienced only by ‘well-known’ people.’ And it may be that only when ‘anonymous folk’ have their privacy infringed upon through relentless observation that the law will ultimately catch up.
We must not forget that there is great commercial pressure put on an unsuspecting public by a range of media (Google, Facebook, Myspace, as well as regular ‘news’ outlets) to trade in this kind of ‘information’ as a commodity. I would urge people to take time to learn more about the implications of their on-line activities, not only for the well-being of our social structure, but quite importantly, for themselves.
This in turn raises other thorny issues such as security cameras and the like for which I believe a robust and transparent public debate must be undertaken in order to allow the public to agree or disagree with the need for constant surveillance in order to protect their society. But that’s a discussion for another day.
Just a little food for thought.
Sorry for the length of this response and I hope it helps.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 
