Part 11 - Protection in Ethical Codes Against Intrusion into Privacy Flashcards
What does the Editors’ Code of Practice say about privacy?
Clause 2 states:
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. In considering an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
What does Clause 2 of the Editors’ Code implicitly cover?
Privacy in relationships.
What does Clause 2 of the Editors’ Code require when considering an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy?
Consideration of whether the complainant has previously made relevant disclosures about his/her private life, and whether the complained-of material is already in the public domain or will become so.
In the Editors’ Code of Practice, what does the ‘public interest’ include?
The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
- Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
- Protecting public health or safety.
- Protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
- Disclosing a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject.
- Disclosing a miscarriage of justice.
- Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.
- Disclosing concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above.
When may Ipso or Ofcom rule that an intrusion into a person’s privacy is justified?
If the information was already in the public domain, or there was consent, or a public interest exception is ruled to apply.
What must happen for a public interest exception to apply with regard to intrusion of privacy?
The editor must be able to demonstrate to the regulator that the intrusion - as regards method used to gain material and what material, including images, was published - was proportionate to the strength of the public interest element in the information sought or published.
What may the strong public interest in showing the public what has happened in some exceptional, large-scale event mean for Ipso and Ofcom?
It is likely to mean that regulators will accept that coverage soon after the event can show the faces of injured, distressed or traumatised people without their consent.
What does the Editors’ Code of Practice state about the privacy of children of famous or notorious people?
Clause 6 states that ‘Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.’
What does the Editors’ Code of Practice state about public interest exceptions regarding children’s privacy?
Public interest exceptions may apply but they must be exceptional as the interests of children under 16 are normally ‘paramount’.
What does the Editors’ Code of Practice state about interviewing or photographing or filming children aged under 16?
Clause 6 states that:
iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child’s interest.
Public interest exceptions must be ‘exceptional’ as the interests of children under 16 are normally ‘paramount’.
What does the Editors’ Code of Practice state about interviewing or photographing or filming ‘vulnerable’ adults on a matter affecting their privacy and welfare?
Whilst there is no specific clause, the preamble states that the Code’s provisions are required to be complied with ‘in spirit’ - and that this would be interpreted by Ipso, under Clause 6 or some other relevant clause, to afford such protection to adults who have such vulnerability such as mental illness or mental incapacity.
Who will need to give consent for intrusion into a child’s privacy or creating a risk to his/her welfare? Who must this consent be for?
A custodial parent of the child or similarly responsible adult, and such a person will be a parent with whom the child normally lives or who has a legal right of access to the child, or a legal guardian with parental responsibility.
This consent must be for each child being interviewed, photographed or filmed in such circumstances, unless an exceptional public interest justification exists to override the need for that consent.
What precautions may have to be taken even if a public interest exception applies to the intrusion of a child’s privacy by filming, photographing or interviewing them?
Obscuring the child’s identity and/or face, e.g. by pixelation of footage or disguise of his/her voice.
What is the need to pixelate children’s faces illustrated by?
The adjudication by the Press Complaints Commission in ‘Complaint by Mrs Laura Gaddis against the Hamilton Advertiser’.
The adjudication by Ofcom in Ofcom Bulletin No. 116 concerning ‘Whistleblower: Childcare’.
(see textbook for case details)
What must be taken into account regarding photos or footage of children in crowds/public places?
They would not normally breach ethical codes if nothing private is shown (for example, there may be implied parental consent because of the nature of the occasion), but even in such circumstances a particular focus on a child - for example, in a crowd - in a private moment or in distress might be ruled as intrusive if such as image was published identifying the child, in that the child’s welfare/privacy is or could be then an issue, and publication of such an image would under the codes need parental consent or a public interest justification.
