Confidentiality- The first surprising aspect for me about this topic was that confidentiality was that its civil law rather than criminal law, and therefore the news story viewed in the newspaper viewed during the lecture about the wiki-leaks story was quickly brandished a non confidential matter. Confidentiality therefore involves confidential matters to an individual person as shown in Mc Nae’s, with example cases such as the wedding photographs taken of two film stars, which were taken by a photographer sneaking into the wedding.
Confidentiality covers a wide range of matters and therefore has to be of 4 qualities to be considered as confidential; it must be an important matter, rather than small or trivial matters. The confidential information must also have been given in a confidential place, rather than a public or open area where the information could be heard by anyone. Thirdly permission must not be given to reveal the information and finally the information must show a loss to the individual, e.g. a loss of earnings. This contrasts to defamation where there only has to be a potential loss to the individual.
The revealing of commercial secrets was the first area of confidentiality to be viewed. This includes the revealing of company secrets such as menus, recipes or confidential information, as an employee must be kept secret as there is a duty to the employer to keep information as an employee. It is a breach of confidence to tell these secrets. More importantly to a journalist is that it is still breaking confidentiality if as a journalist, you publish information as a third party, despite being told the information. Any confidential material which is revealed to a journalist by a member of staff; such as an NHS worker breaking the gagging clause in their contract, must be warned that they are a journalist, and that if the person is prepared to break their clause then it must be put in writing.
Learning about defences which can protect journalists always seems very important. However it is also important to protect the witness who has provided the confidential material. This can be a hard process and cases such as the one involving Bill Goodwin, make it sound as though it is best to avoid confidential material at all costs, as I would hate to have to break a court order and end up in prison!
Cases including that of Sarah Tisdale show the importance of protecting a source, while other cases such as the sinking of the Belgrano, show the importance of using confidential material.
Other confidential material includes not only that of commercial value, but also involving the ministry of defence, concerning the capturing of photographs around army bases and other sensitive areas involving the army.
Under section 8 of the Human rights act, confidentiality also includes every citizen having the right to the enjoyment of private family life- the two film stars having photographs taken of their wedding falls under this category of confidentiality. Consent must be given for the taking of photographs, as seen in the Princess Caroline case; despite being in a public place, by sitting in the back of a restaurant she has clearly not given consent for her photograph to be taken.
I was surprised however to find that every person included in a GV, must have the consent for their photograph or a video of them to be taken. Therefore often blurring of faces or individual people is often seen. The rule that anyone looking for attention by jumping in front of cameras has given consent for their photograph to be taken seems very sensible and logical!
Finally discussed was the use of injunctions to stop publication of photographs or material which is confidential. This is only temporary, but can continue to be granted until the case is fully investigated. Celebrities who have used injunctions make a long list including that listed in Mc Nae’s: Naomi Campbell, David Beckham, Catherine Zeta Jones, Princess Caroline and Gary Flitcroft.
No comments:
Post a Comment