The Right to Know V The Right to Privacy

AUTHOR
Paul Simpkins and Ibrahim Hasan

ABSTRACT

Historically

Many years ago Gorden Kaye, the actor, was in hospital recovering from serious head injuries. A reporter and photographer invaded the hospital room and took photographs of Mr. Kaye with arms and legs in traction and swathed in bandages. He went to court over a breach of his privacy but failed to persuade the judge he had such a right. In 1991 in the case of Kaye v Robertson it was established that there was no basic right in UK law to privacy.

The Court of Appeal said of this case “It is well known that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for breach of a person’s privacy. The facts of the present case are a graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament considering whether and in what circumstances statutory provision can be made to protect the privacy of individuals”.

Lord Justice Bingham agreeing said “The case highlights, yet again, the failure of both the common law of England and statute to protect in an effective way the personal privacy of individual citizens”.

The Freedom of Information Act, maybe inadvertently, together resurrected the old arguments by allowing anyone or any company or any newspaper to ask for the personal data of any individual working in the public sector.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force on 1st January 2000. It gives access to all recorded information held by public sector organisations. Where information about individuals is requested, it requires a consideration of the balance between the individual’s right to privacy with the public’s right to know. A number of recent decisions of the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Information Tribunal have shed light on how to achieve this balance.

Common requests include:

  • Salaries, expenses & retirement packages
  • Grievance and disciplinary records
  • Name and contact details of staff

This paper will examine all the latest decisions and attempt to find a common thread and issues for consideration when dealing with such requests.
Background

The Human Rights Act 1998 brought a variety of new rights to the British people. Key in this area was Article 8 which is generally considered the right to Privacy.

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life his home and his correspondence”

The right once conferred is instantly qualified by the following paragraph.

“There shall be no interference by a public authority except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the rights and freedoms of others”

Exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act

Section 40 concerns personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998. Section 40 applies to two distinct types of requests for information:

  1. if a request asks for the personal data of the applicant himself, the information is exempt; and
  2. if a request asks for the personal data of someone else then that information will be exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (or certain other provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998).

Landmark cases

There are now in early 2008 many decisions publicly available for scrutiny from the regulator – the Information Commissioner. We will consider these in the final paper.

Signposts

From the decisions made by Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal so far, it seems that when faced with a request for personal information about third parties under Freedom of Information, public authorities must consider the following factors:

  • What is the role or capacity of the subject(s) of the request?
  • Is the information about their public life or their private life?
  • What is their reasonable expectation as to the way their information is going to be treated by the public authority?
  • What harm would be caused to them if the information was disclosed?

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has led to a huge increase in requests for information about individuals. Many of these are really requests for subject access under the DPA. There is no blanket exemption for requests for third party personal information. Each request will have to be examined on its own merits and the provisions of the Act applied. Public sector employees and those whose personal information is held by public sector organisations can no longer expect total confidentiality. In certain circumstances their information will be disclosed to the outside world. This seems to be the price of freedom of information.

A Discipline in its Infancy

As Computer Use Grows, So Do Moral Issues
By Terrell Ward Bynum

This article appeared in the Dallas Morning News, on Tuesday, January 12, 1982.

A famous rock star has just died and millions of fans are grieving. The computer of a major novelty distributor is immediately put into action, for there is not a moment to lose if the grief is to be fully exploited. From data banks of ticket agencies, record distributors and other firms, the computer compiles names, addresses, purchasing histories and financial backgrounds of people who bought records and attended concerts of the fallen star. Within 48 hours of the tragedy, the novelty company begins computer-dialing phone numbers of thousands of grieving fans. Whenever someone answers, the computer plays excerpts of the dead star’s most emotional records along with a sales pitch for souvenir T-shirts and posters. Instantly, orders are taken and confirmation letters are printed. Within a week, more than a million fans have been reached, and factories have been notified of the number of items to produce. Is this imagined application of computers a smart, efficient business venture? Is it unfair exploitation of people caught in a weak moment? Is the gathering of information on people and the phoning of their homes an unethical invasion of their privacy or a new and commendable business strategy? Such questions and many harder ones are being raised and debated in “computer ethics,” a new field of growing concern to business and industry as well as to all of society.
Continue reading “A Discipline in its Infancy”

Computer Ethics Issues In Academic Computing

– Further issues concerning teaching computer ethics are explored.

Computer Ethics Issues in Academic Computing table of contents

The National Conference on Computing and Values (NCCV) was held on the campus of Southern Connecticut State University in August 1991. The Conference included six “tracks:” Teaching Computing and Human Values, Computer Privacy and Confidentiality, Computer Security and Crime, Ownership of Software and Intellectual Property, Equity and Access to Computing Resources, and Policy Issues in the Campus Computing Environment. Each track included a major address, three to five commentaries, some small “working groups,” and a packet of relevant readings (the “Track Pack”). A variety of supplemental “enrichment events” were also included.

Continue reading “Computer Ethics Issues In Academic Computing”

Who We Are

The Research Center on Computing & Society is dedicated to the advancement of computer ethics as an academic discipline and to the ethical use of computer technology. Major activities of the Research Center include the following:

  • TEACHING – create and teach computer ethics courses at the university level; conduct computer ethics teaching workshops for faculty members of colleges and universities.
  • NETWORKING – promote cooperation among scholars and public policy makers on computer ethics topics; serve as a central source of information about relevant people, resources, and organizations.
  • RESEARCH – promote research through conference sponsorship, fellowships, grants, internships, commissioned publications, library creation, etc.
  • PUBLICATIONS – create and disseminate books, articles, monographs, proceedings, video programs, model curriculum materials, and other results of research in computer ethics.
  • WEB SITE – create and maintain one of the finest computer ethics Web sites in cyberspace with teaching materials, articles and papers, multimedia materials, and links to other computer ethics resources.

The Research Center on Computing & Society at Southern Connecticut State University • 501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515 • Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail:obengw1@owls.southernct.edu

Continue reading “Who We Are”