What is this 'Right to Privacy' thing, anyway? Where is it in the constitution(US)? I don't remember there being a Privacy Amendent. Now I'm not saying it's altogether bad, I like my 4th ammendment, but it has gone mad!
Cooing at Babies (http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1999092005)
This link says that babies need their 'right to privacy' to be respected. Who has privacy in a hospital?
Even worse, they just shut down all the red-light cams in Virginia Beach because people said it was an invasion of their 'right to privacy'! You're driving on a PUBLIC ROAD! Anyone on the sidewalk can see you and what you're doing! What makes these people think they have any right to privacy there? :flaming:
Thoughts? Comments? Mad Ramblings?

The cooing at babies thing was already covered in an AoLS topic, but the red-light cam thing is just ridiculous. Perhaps we should also shut down the security cameras at the bank so as not to invade the bank-robbers' privacy as well. :rolleyes: Privacy is very specifically not guaranteed when you're in PUBLIC.

Ultimately, people have two options in respect to their driving:
1. You're in public, duh! Act accordingly.
2. Tint your windows if you want your car to be a private place. Don't be surprised when you get a ticket for reckless endangerment, though. :D

The right to privacy is important. First of all, the right to privacy (edit: typo) overrides any "right to curiosity". I don't know what you mean by red-light cams, but if there are any street cams anywhere, the video and image they capture should only be used for the direct intented purpose, not for some additional viewing pleasure.

Let's imagine there are cameras in a public place. It's okay to have those to monitor the place and prevent crime. But it isn't okay to broadcast videos of people making out in the local media. As for roads, even if everyone can see it, broadcasting it shouldn't be allowed.

As for hospitals, rooms with babies shouldn't look like shopping galleries. If a person doesn't want to be asked questions by strangers, he shouldn't. In a hospital, this is perfectly understandable and being exposed to random queries by strangers shouldn't be the default option. What about breast-feeding? Some women don't care, but some would be shocked by the very idea of being seen.

Generally, I am against obsessive protection of privacy of individuals from individuals, but privacy gets much more important in relations between the citizen and a public institution. For example, those nude scans on American airports suck. Civilian hired guards, who aren't even medical stuff or uniformed service (with an oath to protect the country and a special discipline), being able to select people for complete nude strip-search, even people of the opposite gender... come on, that sucks! Nothing on earth can justify that.

They key concern is that human beings cannot be treated as objects. Security, curiosity, whatever. Humans are persons and should be treated as such.

Of course, we see various extremes and even abuse of privacy protection all around. Probably all of us know at least one person described as a "privacy freak". People shouldn't be surprised when something they have said or done in public is brought up. Public info is fair game. But it's wrong when information is used for some collateral, unintented purposes by public institutions or when humans are reduced to objects of someone's curiosity or whatever such, when deception is used to obtain information... and so on.

[ September 30, 2005, 20:23: Message edited by: chevalier ]

NOG, I'd like to hear more about the red light cameras being shut down due to privacy rights...thery're all over the place out here in Mesa, Arizona.

Cameras in public places are always a sticky subject...If it's OK to monitor security cameras at a traffic intersection, why can't "Fred the security guard" monitor the security cameras in the womans rest room at a department store? (or "Jane the security guard" for that matter).

Most cases like this come down to some sort of abuse of the right to monitor, not a general invasion of privacy.

As for the "baby" thing...I don't want a stranger making stupid noises and faces at my kid either. Beat it, pervert.

@ Chev

Red light cameras are cameras that are placed at intersections, that activate and take a picture when a car goes through a red light. The picture shows the car, the red light, and the license plate on the car. You get the ticket in the mail. They aren't that wide spread, and are usually only found in very specific intersections of major cities.

@HS: Speaking of that, I remember reading pieces of a court ruling that the guards' equal employment rights were more important than the inmates' right to privacy and freedom from being seen in the nude by members of the opposite gender. That kind of judge is just pathetic and we have more and more such people nowadays. Whoever says that cross-gender staff viewing nude people is no big deal is a waste of breath talking to.

@Aldeth: Then I see no problem with those cameras. Has there been any abuse?

Not that I'm aware of, and most mayors of cities that have them, love them. They generate good revenue with virtually no cost beyond the purchase price of the camera and the installation. They pay for themselves manifold in a matter of a few weeks.

CCTV is a difficult one; a camera in a public place will necessarily view people of both sexes. If the cameras are there to prevent criminal behaviour, then it's a stronger case, but by no means a justification in and of itself. As a general rule, you've got a great deal less privacy in public, and rightly so. In security, it's another case where gender may become a legitimate occupational requirement, depending on the population under observation.

Sometimes, the ability for privacy advocates to utterly miss the point amazes me. Getting rid of red-light cameras for privacy reasons? Get real. In my experience, they only trigger when someone runs a red light or is breaking the speed limit going through an intersection. I know this because I did three years of night shift at a service station at a busy intersection, and the cameras going off intermittently gave me the necessary schadenfreude to make that mindless work bearable.

The revenue-raising point Aldeth made is spot-on, although truer for speed cameras, in my experience. Those things are money in the bank for government, second only to gambling machines.

They sell a polarized, clear plastic film that you can put over your auto license plate making photo images blurry. Not that I'd ever use one ;) .

Photo radar is real big in some of the communities out here. For that they park a special van beside the road that photographs the front of the speeding vehicle as it approaches (hopefully with the smiling face of the driver) then a second photo as the vehicle departs to capture the tag number. Unmanned, revenue generators...especially when they pick the right spot to wait.

Most people who complain about infringements of their privacy rights are those who have something to hide. Genuine, law abiding citizens should have nothing to worry about from speed cameras or CCTV, unless they are in places like bathrooms.

How important is the right to privacy? This is from a very famous court case - Roe V. Wade:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved.

Okay, bathrooms should be private. Hospitals should be private when you are in your room or treatment area. Mind you most of this is in public, and thus privacy would not apply. If a couple were to have sex on a busy street they have no right to chastize onlookers because they exposed themselves to prying eyes...

...and if that couple put a hat in front of them, I'd probably share my change...

When the trafic cameras were introduced here, the police used to sent two photos, one with the tag number and one with the persons who where in the car. The second one has created family problems in some cases because when they have been received by the wife, she has seen in the photo not only the smiling face of the husband driving the car but the smiling face of an unknown woman as well ;) .

What about the 'privacy' of the dead. There are many news stories about US troops trading images of dead Iraqi's and Afghans for access to a porn site. But this is covered with 'Freedom of Speech'.

Also worth mentioning are those 'Real Death' videos.

Speed and traffic red-light cameras in the UK can only be used if they take pictures of the rear of the vehicle. (Thus protecting the privacy of the individuals in the car). Tickets go to the owner of the car, who then has to ensure that the driver at the time takes responsibility. This enables people to escape a ban if they are already have points on their license and can get someone else to take new ones. (Typically, it's 3-points per speeding offense, and 12 points means a 6-month? ban)
Camera's are now in operation which record vehicles as different points in the journey so their average speed can be calculated. However, I believe they are only allowed on stretches of road between junctions so someones overall journey can't be tracked.

Most streets, shops, public transport stations etc have CCTV, mainly for security purposes. The current law states that (within a set period of time) you can demand any company/person holding CCTV images of you for a copy of the tape. From a privacy point of view, in your copy they have to blank out the faces of any other people shown in the same footage. I believe there is a maximum period of time a company can keep CCTV images as well (excepting crimes), although typically they have a monthly rotating cycle (31 VHS tapes rotated) due to storage limitations. Of course digital recording is making inroads into this. Unfortunately, it is nigh on impossible to stop security staff from making sneeky copies which are then distributed on the internet. I'm aware of a least one case in Covent garden where they captured a couple having sex. (The cameras involved could read the text on the menus in a restaurant about 150m down the road.)

The hospital story is simply ludicrous, although the hospital should make allowance for anyone who doesn't want their child to be visible.

@HB:

Most people who complain about infringements of their privacy rights are those who have something to hide.Agreed. Also, those people tend to be less restrictive about the privacy of others. They will complain if you get familiar with some public information about them, but they will read your mail. :rolleyes:

@BOC:

When the trafic cameras were introduced here, the police used to sent two photos, one with the tag number and one with the persons who where in the car. The second one has created family problems in some cases because when they have been received by the wife, she has seen in the photo not only the smiling face of the husband driving the car but the smiling face of an unknown woman as well.If I were a public officer and a citizen came to me complaining about his wife seeing his speeding ticket along with a photo of a woman in his car, I would just ask him if he expects the state to be an accomplice in hiding his adultery. That sort of privacy is not something that should ever benefit from legal protection.

If I recall correctly, someone lost a case in Poland after informing a husband that his wife used to work as a prostitute, which was accurate information. Criminal offence, slander. Probably fine, if not suspended prison term.

Liars have no right to privacy in their stinking schemes. I believe in people's potential to repent of their guilt and move on, changing their ways, even if the guilt is something particularly deceitful. In that case, it could even be desirable to keep the person's offences secret (I know priests who say you shouldn't tell your spouse if you commit adultery because it will only create pain and undo nothing... I'm not sure if I want to make my mind on this now), but public service and the state itself should never be expect to participate as an accomplice in a dishonourable affair and help people weave their nets of deception.

@Cuchulainn:

What about the 'privacy' of the dead. There are many news stories about US troops trading images of dead Iraqi's and Afghans for access to a porn site. But this is covered with 'Freedom of Speech'.The dead are dead, so rights reside with living families and other successors. However, I can't but think of laws protecting the dignity of the dead. There is a legal construct of "insult of the grave". It also applies to the body, not just the grave itself. An affront to human remains is a crime where I live.

@Carcaroth:

Unfortunately, it is nigh on impossible to stop security staff from making sneeky copies which are then distributed on the internet.A couple of years in prison, lifetime ban from all kinds of security and surveillance work, as well as a civil lawsuit should fix this. Sounds harsh, but this kind of wrong is not something like hitting another drunk guy over a pint of beer or insulting an idiot who's asking for it. There's quite a massive degree of malice prepense and the crime has a strong antisocial mark, so a harsh penalty is very much in order IMHO. Same as tanning beds people who broadcast nude videos of their customers on the internet -- those should be banned from any such work for life and forced to relinquish the business if the own it.

Oh I tend to agree Chev, if such people are caught there is no doubt they'll lose their job. However, catching them is the difficult thing in the first place. It's going to be a rare thing anyway (getting video footage of people doing naughty things in public) so it's unlikely that anyone who knows the said people will see it. Therefore no-one makes complaints, and it is a waste of resources to police your security staff for something that may or may not be going on.

In addition, there are no laws about who can or can-not be employed as a member of security, it's down to the individual company. Some will be a lot less caring in the first place, and it's also illegal to give someone a bad job reference.

If I recall correctly, someone lost a case in Poland after informing a husband that his wife used to work as a prostitute, which was accurate information. Criminal offence, slander. Probably fine, if not suspended prison term. How is it slander if it's true? Maybe the definition of slander is different Poland, but in the US, one of the necessary elements to prove slander is that it was false. If the wife WAS a prostitute, then stating that she was is not slander.

it's also illegal to give someone a bad job reference What? What if they were a lousy employee?

How is it slander if it's true? Maybe the definition of slander is different Poland, but in the US, one of the necessary elements to prove slander is that it was false. If the wife WAS a prostitute, then stating that she was is not slander.Tell that to Polish judges. The criminal code is ambiguous, so it's just court practice (which officially is not law). Slander, defamation, whatever such. Probably defamation would be the best translation.

Are you kidding? I mean, what does the criminal code say? What is the criteria? The way it sounds currently if anyone say anything negative about you, it would qualify as slander.

There are two basic elements in the US to slander. You must 1) prove the statement was false, and 2) prove that you were harmed by the statement. 2) is usually a given, as people who are slandered typiaclly have something bad happen to them, like losing their jobs. Even if you can't prove 2), you can claim defamation of character.

What about the 'privacy' of the dead True. What about the pics that were published in all the newspapers of the dead floating around in New Orleans after the hurricane?

@Aldeth: It just says defamation about one, "insults directly or with the intent that the insult should reach the person" about the other potential charge. It's the judges who won't let go of you if the information is true. It only works if the target is a politician or a celebrity or similar and the bad info is somewhat related to his field of activity. Then you get away with it if you prove it's true.

@Shell: True. What about the pics that were published in all the newspapers of the dead floating around in New Orleans after the hurricane?I can't speak for the UK, US or any other country, but in Poland, showing too close close-ups of dead people is illegal. They still do it regardless and get away with it. I think dead human bodies shouldn't be shown before a certain late hour (I mean on the news or in documentaries, not necessarily all kinds of movies).

[ September 30, 2005, 20:39: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Needless to say, I completely disagree with that law. I do think it is wrong to spread malicious rumors or statements about someone, but if it's fact and not rumor, I don't see how the person is defamed. If you are so insulted by it, maybe you shouldn't have undertaken the action to be labelled as such in the first place.

So in other words, if someone had been previously arrested for prostitution, and then you mentioned she was a prostitute, she can sue you for slander, even though you could easily prove that she does have a conviction for prostitution on her record? That's not right.

You could even get a suspended term for calling a theft convict a thief, I think. I also disagree completely. Another problem, apart from it being so unjust, is also how burdensome it is to place some kind of universal obligation on every citizen to guard every other citizen's reputation in good faith. That's absurd. You shouldn't be expected to act in that person's best interest or anything, or guard secrets, unless you've made a promise or some such.

It's ridiculous. I freely admit that there are some strange laws on the books in the U.S. and other countries have better interpretations of some laws, but this is one case where I agree with the U.S. law entirely - it's not slander if it's true.

If it's not defamatory to call someone like me who practices chemistry a chemist, then it should not be defamatory to call someone who practices theivery a theif. Just like one who rapes is a rapist. It's not slander, it is an accurate description of what the person does.

Of course there is the caveat that (just like in every other court case) the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation. You certainly can be sued (and probably successfully) if you call someone a prostitute and there is absolutely no evidence of that person ever engaging in prostitution.

In Polish court practice, it's defamation because you damage that person's reputation and stance within the person's circles, perhaps in job-related things. Of course, if you announced that the local GP bought his diploma or the local priest wasn't really a priest, or the local pro-family politician had his wife abort three pregnancies, that wouldn't get you behind the bars. But in the prostitute wife example... Perhaps it wasn't the most charitable and elegant thing to do, but I agree with you that it shouldn't be a crime if it's true information.

I guess intent is important too. If you're bringing up an allegation for the simple sake of damaging someone's character, it's one thing, but if it's relavent for the position that person is holding (such as the examples you cited), then I think not only should it not be a crime, but it actually may be in the society's best interest to have that information known.

My stance is liars have no right to privacy or should have none, so far as their net of lies goes. The other lawyer wannabie in my family agreed. :p I guess blackmail should always be a crime, perhaps damaging someone's character as you say, but yeah, no easy ride for liars.

Actually, Aldeth, it is also slander/liable if you make no attempt to find out if it is true or not. If you spread a dammaging rumor that may or may not be true, you are guilty even if it ends up being true. I don't know if you are culpable if you add that you don't know if it is true or not.
As for the babies, I understand if some parents don't want lots of people bothering them or cooing at their child, but they can make a special request. I don't think most people care and I know more than a few, especially the fathers, that WANT to be asked questions and congratulated and whatsuch.
As for the red-light cams here, the city was making a killing off them, but a small group of citizens started making a huge stink about it being an invation of their privacy, even though there was no abuse of any kind, and the politicians caved in because they were afraid of loosing votes. They didn't even put the issue to the public! After the fact, a local news station did and they found that 90% of the people they polled said they liked the cams!
I don't know how true it is, but I heard that NY city and London were thinking about putting cameras on high-crime streets and such but this whole 'right to privacy' issue came up and I never heard any more about it. Can anyone verify?

I don't know if you are culpable if you add that you don't know if it is true or not.That gets close to the so called "relata refero" (I am relating the related), which isn't considered an excuse in Polish courts. I suppose you could get away with telling a person about his or her fiance(e)s former or present but secret life in order that marrying the latter could be avoided. That would take a real little Richard of a judge to sentence you for. Frankly, I would do that even if it were a crime spelt out in the criminal code if a friend or relative of mine ended up in such a situation, nor would I suffer a lie uncalled. Well, I guess a friend wouldn't have it too hard. The person who got sentenced was not the husband's friend or relative and the woman was already married to her husband, so it couldn't have been avoided anymore, so the motive might have been spite and therefore punished by the judge. But I still have mixed feelings. It would surely have been a heck of a lot easier for the husband not to know. Especially if she had changed since then. I would keep such a secret secret, if asked, if I knew the person in question had changed and the marriage had been concluded. If not yet concluded but only planned... well, that would be more difficult. At any rate, I wouldn't suffer a lie.