Privacy: Where does it end?

[Fragony]

If I get caught commiting adultery then most people who know me and a good number who know of me will find out. If a large proportion of the population know of me then they will find out. It is foolish to believe otherwise. If you don't want to be found out then don't do the deed. Preventing people from publishing facts, no matter how trivial they are in the grand scheme of things, seems wrong. If you are harassed or slandered then deal with those crimes rather than the "crime" of printing the truth.

I most fundamentally disagree, your private life isn't anyone's business, if they want to know anyway they are sick imho but alas, People who want to dig that deep are just as bad as rapists

[The Stranger]

but there are the odd cases

ive heard about one yesterday.

a surgeon had worked in germany and there his amateuristic skill had already cost numerous patients their health of worse, their life. they fired him in germany. then he went on to work in holland, some german officials knew about this but didnt warn the dutch hospital because they said, they could not intrude on this mans privacy, and if they would notify the hospital it would be against the law (german law i presume).

imo this is an example where the mans privacy should no longer count equal to the public cause. his failure to meet proffesional standards no longer only effects him but it effects numerous other people. here the press should be digging into. but no instead of investigating such affairs they are reporting the wedding of two people and taking pictures of drunk people without underwear, two quite common and uninteresting things. this man shouldve been stopped immediatly. his privacy regarding his profession no longer applies when he is causing destruction and death because he is an amateur. this still doesnt mean anyone has the right to enquire into his marital problems or that he must answer if it has absolutely no relation to why he has been butchering people in the hospital.

[Fragony]

Congratulations it's a Dutchie, if it isn't your business knowing why do you want to know? Get a life of your own no

[The Stranger]

your post makes absolutely no sense at all.

privacy rights and law contain more than just papparazi bs. its a pretty complicated legal issue.

[Fragony]

your post makes absolutely no sense at all.

privacy rights and law contain more than just papparazi bs. its a pretty complicated legal issue.

Oh, which part? We actually agree, need to know bases, next time I'll rap it maybe that helps

[The Stranger]

nevermind -_-

we did actually agree tho. we should drink to that. yesterday i was on the hoge veluwe and bought a bottle of Zwienebitter. come join me?

[Fragony]

nevermind -_-

we did actually agree tho. we should drink to that. yesterday i was on the hoge veluwe and bought a bottle of Zwienebitter. come join me?

Joining anything on de Veluwe is always scary trust me I'm from there. Run

[Slyspy]

I most fundamentally disagree, your private life isn't anyone's business, if they want to know anyway they are sick imho but alas, People who want to dig that deep are just as bad as rapists

You misunderstand. I don't believe that it is their business at all, but in reality there is nothing I can do about it. People like to talk, people like a gossip. In cases like Giggs the super injunction becomes a hammer to break a nut, in this case an ineffectual one, which simply makes matters worse. That Giggs had an affair has essentially been all over the media for months. Not explicitly of course, but there nevertheless. Hint to people that there is a secret out there and it only makes them more interested.

I regard the danger posed by court orders about which you cannot speak as far more serious than the exposure of the facts regarding a footballer's affair, a businessman's dubious dealings or a councillor's indescretion.

Any untruths can be tackled using the existing laws on slander or libel in a public ccourt, as is right and proper.

[Fragony]

If it affects him why wouldn't he go to court to stop them from publishing, it might hurt his career his 'brand' (think Hugh Grant), and for what, stupid curiosity. Freedom of press isn't at stake here, it's completely irrelevant to know what he does in his private life. Can't you see the difference between a footballers affair and a businessmen dubious dealings

[a completely inoffensive name]

you would say so at first. but we exactly have those rights and laws to protect the individual because their interests get forgone and forgotten all to easy for the "greater good". they should be balanced equal.

a famous example for this problem is used by ethical thinkers, i forgot the name of the case. its not exactly the same like the example i give now because this is about privacy.

if one person has a secret which can help the entire community survive a serious disaster, does the community have the right to get that one person to tell his secret by all means? even if by making this secret public that one persons life will be ruined?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

now change this example a bit. if killing one person can make the entire community survive serious disaster, does the community have the right to take the life of that person?

We can all sit around here and pat ourselves on the back for saying no that we would all gladly let everyone die to uphold morals and principles we have created in our head. Or we can be realistic here and recognize that one person's life != everyone's life. There is no one to praise us for sticking to our principles but ourselves, and we if we all die who are we trying to impress?

I am in agreement that things should all be in balance, but individuals have supremacy over the whole up until the point where that individual is risking the lives over everyone else through their actions. In your case, by withholding a secret.

imo a private affair stops where it becomes a public affair, imo when it involves more than one person or a group of consenting adults. the public affair stops where it impedes on the rights of the individual. and both affairs must stop where they cross the line of the law.

That line you have drawn is vague though and isn't really of any use. Anybody can come up with a million different ways for why any private affair is actually a public one because of some x,y and z fiscal reason. The art of bull**** is well rehearsed among many sleazeballs.

this i hope answer your reply to my example. when i cross a red light and get fined, that is nobodys business but between me and the law. therefor the press has no right to cover it if i dont want that. however if im a ceo and ive commited fraude then my actions effect not just myself, but alot more people and these people have a right to know what happened. and thats where the press should come in.

All government actions should be held accountable though, large and small. There should be a record that on this year, on this day, at this time, so and so ran a red light and was fined x amount of dollars in accordance with this law. Why does the name need to be published at all? Well, how else is the record going to be verified unless we are just going to trust that every cop or police department out there will give accurate reports.

I'm not trying to argue that there should be no privacy in any case, but when it comes to the boundaries of when and where information should be restricted on government records and actions in accordance to the rights of the individual it can't really come down to "why should anyone else know about my traffic ticket?". Well lets be honest here, there is a big difference my response to that than the question, "why should anyone else know about this girl's claim I tried to rape her at a party?". In the former, my reaction is meh because who honestly cares about a traffic ticket, whereas if there is a situation like in the latter, even just the accusation of being a pedophile, or a sexual molestor or a rapist can completely isolate you socially and job wise for the rest of your life if the information is public and spread everywhere.

your right of filming stops when you shove it into my nose, the same way your right of preaching neo-nazi ideals freely stops the moment you set foot out of private property. then you have to consider those other people around you with everything you do.

This is true and I agree with you.

its a difficult issue, and a thin line between when its right or wrong to choose the right of the public over that of the individual. but one thing atleast should always be so when it happens, a clear and important cause will be served by it. and i simply do not see this in the case of papparazzi press. they say the public has a right to know what underware their favorite star is wearing but its pure bs.

We both agree that this isn't clear cut but I feel like taking a step further than you in saying that the line is as fuzzy as it is thin. Papparazzi are bs, but they follow the rules nevertheless. They gather on the sidewalk and usually only get closer in public areas like parks, gas stations etc.. Going any further to say you can't take pics period is getting into dangerous territory that needs to be evaluated.

[naut]

Privacy usually ends at the y. Taking it any further makes it a different word entirely.

[The Stranger]

[QUOTE=a completely inoffensive name;2053319643]

We can all sit around here and pat ourselves on the back for saying no that we would all gladly let everyone die to uphold morals and principles we have created in our head. Or we can be realistic here and recognize that one person's life != everyone's life. There is no one to praise us for sticking to our principles but ourselves, and we if we all die who are we trying to impress?

I am in agreement that things should all be in balance, but individuals have supremacy over the whole up until the point where that individual is risking the lives over everyone else through their actions. In your case, by withholding a secret.

That line you have drawn is vague though and isn't really of any use. Anybody can come up with a million different ways for why any private affair is actually a public one because of some x,y and z fiscal reason. The art of bull**** is well rehearsed among many sleazeballs.

the one with the secret is relatively easy, though still a complicated issue, compared to the slippery slope it puts you on by accepting that the group is allowed to intervene at the cost of an individual for the benefit of the group. will you draw the line at murder? but why would you stop there?

All government actions should be held accountable though, large and small. There should be a record that on this year, on this day, at this time, so and so ran a red light and was fined x amount of dollars in accordance with this law. Why does the name need to be published at all? Well, how else is the record going to be verified unless we are just going to trust that every cop or police department out there will give accurate reports.

for me this is a different point. privacy ends where the law begins. but it is an issue between you and those who uphold the law. and when no third party is involved in some way, being it as victim or as culprit, there is no need for anyone to meddle in those affairs, and neither do they have the right to do so.

I'm not trying to argue that there should be no privacy in any case, but when it comes to the boundaries of when and where information should be restricted on government records and actions in accordance to the rights of the individual it can't really come down to "why should anyone else know about my traffic ticket?". Well lets be honest here, there is a big difference my response to that than the question, "why should anyone else know about this girl's claim I tried to rape her at a party?". In the former, my reaction is meh because who honestly cares about a traffic ticket, whereas if there is a situation like in the latter, even just the accusation of being a pedophile, or a sexual molestor or a rapist can completely isolate you socially and job wise for the rest of your life if the information is public and spread everywhere.

i entirely agree with you. but there is a big difference between the two case, which ive already stated before, not because rape is more severe but because rape involves more than the two parties of individual and the law, it involves a third party and thus its no longer a private matter. but your last point is also true and thats why its such a delicate matter, and even in cases of rape where more than the two parties of individual and law are involved i would vouch to keep it between the involved matters, atleast untill someone is proven to be guilty. but i understand the need for people to know what happened, if only to sooth them, when someone is murdered in their neighbourhood.

[Slyspy]

If it affects him why wouldn't he go to court to stop them from publishing, it might hurt his career his 'brand' (think Hugh Grant), and for what, stupid curiosity. Freedom of press isn't at stake here, it's completely irrelevant to know what he does in his private life. Can't you see the difference between a footballers affair and a businessmen dubious dealings

No, and neither does the law since the secrecy of both can be protected using super-injunctions.

Besides which, taking it back to Giggs, it is his own actions which have hurt his "brand". You must take the consequences of your actions, so must he.

There was an interesting example in the Sunday Times pointing out that if a person who cannot be named due to an injuction reveals even the existence of that injunction then that unnamed person can then be jailed. And yet that injunction could not be mentioned in court. So you could end up with an unamed person going to jail after action brought by persons unknown for reasons which cannot be spoken of even in a closed court. That can't be right.

[Fragony]

That the affairs of a football-player has as much an impact on his career as the dubious dealings of a businessman is only because people like to feed on other people's life. The dubious dealings are worth printing, but people waiting for a haircut made it just the same as the affairs of a football-player. Stop checking the sheets of your neighbour to find odd spots and this isn't necessary, the line won't be breeched if you just don't. It's all on you for making public figures private property, they aren' they just play football

[a completely inoffensive name]

the one with the secret is relatively easy, though still a complicated issue, compared to the slippery slope it puts you on by accepting that the group is allowed to intervene at the cost of an individual for the benefit of the group. will you draw the line at murder? but why would you stop there?

I'm not that general with my principles. The group is allowed to intervene at the cost of an individual for the benefit of the group if the survival of the group as whole including the individual intervened with is threatened. That is the difference. If one man is holding everyone hostage, whether through malicious intent or through ignorance, it is not acceptable to hold onto principles just to feel good as we all die. If the situation can be fixed without violence than that is obviously the better route to go, but it is not a slippery slide when you have a clear line drawn in the sand of not until our lives are threatened can we intervene. Not for an inconvenience, but for real serious stuff.

for me this is a different point. privacy ends where the law begins. but it is an issue between you and those who uphold the law. and when no third party is involved in some way, being it as victim or as culprit, there is no need for anyone to meddle in those affairs, and neither do they have the right to do so.

I agree that no one has a need to meddle, but that is different than a right to know yes? Knowing does not necessarily mean allowing action by third parties.

i entirely agree with you. but there is a big difference between the two case, which ive already stated before, not because rape is more severe but because rape involves more than the two parties of individual and the law, it involves a third party and thus its no longer a private matter. but your last point is also true and thats why its such a delicate matter, and even in cases of rape where more than the two parties of individual and law are involved i would vouch to keep it between the involved matters, atleast untill someone is proven to be guilty. but i understand the need for people to know what happened, if only to sooth them, when someone is murdered in their neighbourhood.

Yes, it is very difficult to discern between what should and shouldn't be public. In fact, in the conclusion we have agreed upon, I don't think it can be denied that having such an exception for the rape accusation case is solely because of the cultural reaction we as a society have to those that are even merely accused as rapists. So therefore we must admit that there might not even be a line that can be drawn since it might as well shift every time our cultural reactions and expectations change. So how can we justify not allowing paparazzi to follow celebrities or not allowing third parties to find out about your traffic ticket on such shaky grounds? It is no longer a right's issue in the sense of "I have this right and always will." Now it is conditional based on culture, which might as well not make it a "right" at all, at least in the natural sense.