The drumbeats for privacy legislation can once again be heard around Leinster House. I did a radio interview with Matt Cooper on Today FM’s The Last Word yesterday evening; and I have an op-ed about it in today’s Irish Examiner (.doc here):
… the bill is unnecessary to cover the publication of the topless photographs, as Irish law already provides a remedy. Worse, the bill goes too far in dealing with press invasions of privacy; and it fails to deal with many other important aspects of privacy. …
A privacy bill is necessary. However, the one being proposed by the minister is not it. It will need a lot of work if it is to protect our privacy properly.
Links: here are some links to the cases and materials to which I refer in the article:
The Privacy Bill, 2006 is here. An op-ed I wrote at the time is here.
The Minister’s Press Release is here.
I have blogged about the photograph of the GAA player, Sinnott v Carlow Nationalist, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
The nursing home case is Cogley v RTÉ  4 IR 79,  IEHC 180 (8 June 2005).
The case relating to the priest’s affair is Herrity v Associated Newspapers  IEHC 249 (18 July 2008)),
I blogged about the Minister’s comments last March here, republished here.
The revised Privacy Bill, 2012 introduced by Senator Norris is here.
The Data Protection Commissioner’s website is here.
CCTV in Ireland is overseen by the Department of Justice.
A model for the Privacy Commissioner discussed in the article is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Bonus links: (i) other pieces in the Irish Examiner:
Colette Browne: Let’s dispense with hypocrisy over publication of Kate’s topless photos
Juno McEnroe: Shatter vows to put end to ‘creepy keyhole journalism’
Bonus links: (ii) similar pieces in the Irish Times:
Jennifer O’Connell: Fascination with Kate’s breasts and Karen’s clothes makes idiots of us all
Vincent Browne: Media continues to fail to hold powerful to account
Editorial 1: A discredited Bill
Editorial 2: DNA database
I think there is an irony in the alignment of these two editorials. I agree with the first editorial that the Privacy Bill is discredited and “a serious attack on the freedom of the press” which would “become a vehicle simply for the rich and powerful … secretly to muzzle press investigation”. But there is no recognition in the second editorial that a DNA database raises profound privacy concerns. A modern DNA database may indeed represent a necessary investment in crime detection, but it is also an example of the real challenges to privacy posed by the power of the State.