In today’s Irish Times, Mary Minihan writes:
…Complaints to BAI over TV3 cancer disclosure
The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) has received 70 e-mails complaining about the TV3 news broadcast on St Stephen’s Day disclosing the cancer diagnosis of Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan. …
Meanwhile, Minster for Social and Family Affairs Mary Hanafin said she and her Government colleagues were “appalled” at the way the story was disclosed. …
You read it here first folks. Now, in today’s Irish Times, Michael Foley (School of Media, DIT) writes:
Lenihan broadcast could lead to privacy law rethink
ANALYSIS: TV3 had no more than a rumour about Brian Lenihan’s health, and no attributable source. …
Unlike journalists, politicians like rules, and the Minister for Justice has already warned he will revisit his privacy proposals if the media does not behave. The insensitive invasion of a popular politician’s privacy might be just the example he needs.
Expect to see lots of references to this piece as the clamour for privacy legislation begins to grow.
Update: have a look at John McGurk‘s thoughtful posts on the issue.…
Joe Ryan wrote both an interesting comment on this morning’s post and a great post about the issue on his own blog. My reply to him became too long for a comment, so I’ve upgraded it to this post.
First, I should say that I worked with Brian Lenihan for a few years in TCD, and my thoughts and best wishes are with him and his family at this difficult time. It may be a cliché, but it’s nonetheless true for all that, and I hope he returns to rude good health as quickly as possible.
Second, as TJ McIntyre and Jason Walsh argue, Brian’s illness must be a prime example of a public interest in disclosure. On the other hand, Jim Tormey argues that it is a legitimate matter of public interest only when Brian finds or it appears obvious that he cannot do his job. This is a strong argument, and even some who are wary of overbearing privacy laws are discomfited by TV3’s insensitivity and lack of self-restraint. In the circumstances, I think that Brian showed great restraint in not seeking an injunction to prevent TV3’s broadcast, and I agree with Joe (and with Myles Duffy on The Crimson Observer) that, if Brian chooses to make an issue of it, the matter should go to the recently-fully-established Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI).…
There has been much comment over the weekend about TV3‘s disclosure of the serious illness with which Brian Lenihan, Minister for Finance, has recently been diagnosed. This poses many questions, but I want to ask only one: will the public anger at TV3’s disclosure provide the political impetus – or perhaps simply political cover – to proceed with the enactment of the (misconceived) Privacy Bill, 2006?…
From the cover of Kathryn Dalziel‘s Privacy in Schools: A guide to the Privacy Act for principals, teachers and boards of trustees (Privacy Commissioner of New Zealand, 2009), a cartoon by Chris Slane:
 |
Image: teacher and schoolboys in a classroom surveyed by several cctv cameras.
Caption: schoolboy to teacher: “Please sir, can I have some more privacy?”…
I remember this one time, at BarCamp Dublin, I went to Darren Barefoot’s presentation, and he said
Things live forever on the web … the internet never forgets.
Total recall online is now a common trope, and one which forms the starting point of Viktor Mayer-Schönberger‘s provocative new book Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age (Princeton University Press, 2009). Your privacy is gone, and you don’t know what you’ve lost till it’s too late. Two years ago, Dan Solove warned in The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (Yale University Press, 2007) that a permanent online chronicle of our private lives could mean that the freedom of the internet makes us less free. Now, for the “future that is forever unforgiving because it is unforgetting”, Mayer-Schönberger proposes the remedy of induced forgetting for the internet’s elephantine memory …
Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the scientist behind DNA fingerprinting, in a BBC interview to mark the 25th anniversary of that discovery, has spoken of the importance of allowing academics freedom to research. He said that academics should be able to pursue “unfettered, fundamental, curiosity-driven” research of the kind which led to his discovery. It is an important defence not only of academic freedom but also of traditional research methodology in the face of increasingly dirigiste institutional, sectoral and national research strategies.
Equally important – though more newsworthy – is his call, in the same interview, for a change to the UK’s law governing DNA databases. In that interview, he said that “innocent people do not belong on that database”, and he renewed his calls for the UK government to change the law governing the UK’s DNA databases – particularly the practice of keeping the DNA profiles of thousands of people who have neither been charged nor convicted.
In S and Marper v UK 30562/04 [2008] ECHR 1581 (4 December 2008), the applicants complained that their fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles had been retained by the police, pursuant to section 64 (1A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, notwithstanding that proceedings against them had ended with an acquittal or had been discontinued.…
The title of this post is the provocative title of a recently published book from Oxford University Press written by Jon L Mills (on the author, see University of Florida Levin College of Law | University of Miami School of Law; on the book, see Amazon | Barnes & Noble | Google Books | OUP; if you want to judge it by its cover, that’s it on the right left).
The OUP blurb says that the book:
…
- Provides a straightforward and concise history of the regulations and policies governing our personal privacy
- Reviews the full range of privacy issues that affect United States citizens, including identity theft, government surveillance, tabloid journalism, and video surveillance in public places
- Considers the legal tools available to individuals who wish to protect their personal privacy
The disturbing reality of contemporary life is that technology has laid bare the private facts of most people’s lives. Email, cell phone calls, and individual purchasing habits are no longer secret. Individuals may be discussed on a blog, victimized by an inaccurate credit report, or have their email read by an employer or government agency without their knowledge. Government policy, mass media, and modern technology pose new challenges to privacy rights, while the law struggles to keep up with the rapid changes.
© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress