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.
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: 457 | 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: 256 | 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: 216 | 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.
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.
Posts: 1 | Location: ct | Registered: January 30, 2008
I have read, with interest, the comments made by the subscribers to Mr. Greenslade's blog, the articles printed in the Globe and Mail, and Miss McKennitt's responses. I congratulate Miss McKennitt on "sticking to her guns" and pursuing the issue. While, embarrassingly, I have only known of Miss McKennitt for about three years, I have read about how much good she has done for her community...how involved she is on so many different levels. Such as it is, it is my feeling that one's personal life should be sacrosanct. No one has the right to intrude, through writing, publicly speaking, recording, or photographing, on or about anyone else's personal matters when they do not directly affect those who have no direct personal involvement. Public figures/ "celebrities" should be held accountable for their roles as public figures/"celebrities"...not their personal lives. Report/write about their performances in public...not intimate details of a personal nature. I strongly support Miss McKennitt's stand on this issue. I applaud her willingness to take the media to task. They well and truly need to be put in their place. Where is respect... where is honour? Hopefully, some in the media will re-examine their roles. Miss McKennitt has held her head high and stuck to her principles. I admire that.
Bill O'Reilly (Fox News--U.S. network)is doing an interesting series on celebrity privacy rights. I never knew that Jacqueline Kennedy had sued over her privacy and won. Very illuminating discussion. Certainly the abuse that many stars suffer by the paparazzi should be curbed extremely.
Posts: 39 | Location: Heart of the Central Texas Universe | Registered: January 11, 2007
Originally posted by drdiver: I find it an interesting phenomenon that celebrities create contractual agreements between their employees/friends/hangers-on whatever you wish to call them with the idea of controlling what is said about them at a later date. Of course, such a practice has been a standard practice in corporations for many years at a certain level of employment. The image of the celebrity is integral part of the celebrity package (in some case the only part). So to the extent that celebrities view these relationships as employees certainly a contract with them is binding. It must lead to a very difficult life however, where one's friends have to be viewed as employees to help maintain an image. It is must undoubtedly be at least part of the cause of many of the emotional and physical illnesses and disturbances that occur with so many celebrities.
The other issue is that such agreements are used to suppress the reporting of illegal activities (which was not the case in the McKennitt-Ash dispute--I've read the Ash book and personally thought the whole thing a tempest in a teapot, but it wasn't my privacy invaded and clearly LM felt strongly about it and under UK law she clearly had a right to sue and won.) In the U.S. I doubt that the case would have made it to court.
The coverup of illegal activities is the dark side of "maintaining privacy". It is easy to intimidate an individual with the threat of a lawsuit--hence the whistleblower laws in government to protect people who come forward about illegal activities. And those laws do not work well.
Consider this: One of the key witnesses in bringing the indictment of Michael Vick for illegal gambling involving dog fighting was doing business with him (he had sold him one of the dogs that was later murdered). He could have been held accountable under a contractual secrecy agreement as a contractor to the celebrity. Everyone should think about the power of the rich and the powerful (and I'm certainly not limiting this to celebrities) to suppress information through intimidation. One of the precepts of the Code of Hammurabi (one of the oldest law codes) was "The first duty of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful."
------------------------------------------------
When one is involved in illegal or criminal behavior, the right to privacy goes out the window and is superceded by the right of the public to know and protect themselves. If one isn't a danger to society they should have the right to their privacy, whether they be rich and powerful or poor and powerless.
I find it an interesting phenomenon that celebrities create contractual agreements between their employees/friends/hangers-on whatever you wish to call them with the idea of controlling what is said about them at a later date. Of course, such a practice has been a standard practice in corporations for many years at a certain level of employment. The image of the celebrity is integral part of the celebrity package (in some case the only part). So to the extent that celebrities view these relationships as employees certainly a contract with them is binding. It must lead to a very difficult life however, where one's friends have to be viewed as employees to help maintain an image. It is must undoubtedly be at least part of the cause of many of the emotional and physical illnesses and disturbances that occur with so many celebrities.
The other issue is that such agreements are used to suppress the reporting of illegal activities (which was not the case in the McKennitt-Ash dispute--I've read the Ash book and personally thought the whole thing a tempest in a teapot, but it wasn't my privacy invaded and clearly LM felt strongly about it and under UK law she clearly had a right to sue and won.) In the U.S. I doubt that the case would have made it to court.
The coverup of illegal activities is the dark side of "maintaining privacy". It is easy to intimidate an individual with the threat of a lawsuit--hence the whistleblower laws in government to protect people who come forward about illegal activities. And those laws do not work well.
Consider this: One of the key witnesses in bringing the indictment of Michael Vick for illegal gambling involving dog fighting was doing business with him (he had sold him one of the dogs that was later murdered). He could have been held accountable under a contractual secrecy agreement as a contractor to the celebrity. Everyone should think about the power of the rich and the powerful (and I'm certainly not limiting this to celebrities) to suppress information through intimidation. One of the precepts of the Code of Hammurabi (one of the oldest law codes) was "The first duty of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: drdiver,
Posts: 39 | Location: Heart of the Central Texas Universe | Registered: January 11, 2007
