FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W262305671> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W262305671 startingPage "274" @default.
• W262305671 abstract "England proposes to avoid pitfalls of privacy law through strengthening law of confidentiality and new human rights law protecting private information IN October 2002, law of privacy in England, if there ever was one, appeared to come to an abrupt halt in Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers plc.1 Despite earlier successful claims for privacy in cases that settled before trial, Court of Appeal in Campbell analysed and deconstructed legal arguments advanced for existence of tort of privacy and under Data Protection Act 1998 and House of Lords decision in Wainwright v. Home Office.2 The Court of Appeal's judgment suggested that British privacy law was dead and buried, to relief of newspaper editors. But it was not to be as simple as that. Naomi Campbell won her appeal in House of Lords. The law of confidentiality has been extended, and only time will tell if freedom of expression becomes loser. Perhaps media have overlooked need to maintain journalistic standards in its initial relief. Private information is now protectable and financially may be worth protecting-just. There is confusion amongst media lawyers trying to protect publishers. How did this come to pass? PRIVACY NOT NEW Privacy is not new to law in England. In 1351, law against eavesdropping was introduced, and it remained on statute books, long since forgotten, until it was repealed in 1967. In 1939, with storm clouds of war brewing across Europe, committee of great and good met to see if they could draw up bill on universal human rights, including privacy provisions. Members of committee included authors H.G. Wells, George Orwell and A.A. Milne. Alas, World War II intervened. Problems had previously arisen before modern newspapers emerged. In 1848, Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria, started ball rolling. The queen and her husband amused themselves by making private etchings and drawings-this in pre-photographic age-which were kept secret at Windsor Castle and shown only to close friends. Prince Albert decided to send etchings to printers to make copies, and sneaky workman took copies. These found their way to defendant, Mr. Strange, who put them in catalogue and sought to exhibit them. Prince Albert went to his wife's courts to stop publication.3 Another possible remedy was law of copyright, which was already very advanced in England at that time, but courts relied instead on principle of protecting privacy and providing relief against a sordid spying into privacy of domestic life. The judge granted an injunction against both catalogue and exhibition. The court was impressed by need to control one's possessions and enjoy them, pleasure heightened because they are not seen or available to others. Shortly afterwards, philosopher John Stuart Mill declared in On Liberty (1859) that free speech underpinned freedom. But Mill also recognised that the liberty of individual must be thus far limited; he must not make nuisance of himself to other people. But for next century privacy was an issue debated by writers rather than lawyers. ENTER: 20TH CENTURY For long time media behaved themselves, at least in eyes of Parliament, but technological advances began to affect status quo. The arrival of mass market tabloid newspapers and magazines, as well as paparazzi who took unwanted and sometimes intrusive pictures with telephoto lenses, began collision course between press and judiciary. In 1977, Lord Bernstein, successful businessman and media magnate, was unsuccessful when he tried to claim an injunction to stop aerial photography of his house and grounds. An enterprising pilot had flown over grounds of rich houseowners taking photographs he then sought to sell to them. Many were happy to buy surprisingly high-quality photographs, but Lord Bernstein was outraged that someone had flown several hundred feet above this land and photographed it. …" @default.
• W262305671 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W262305671 creator A5015690974 @default.
• W262305671 date "2004-07-01" @default.
• W262305671 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W262305671 title "Privacy-Confidentiality in England: Courts Don't Go West in High-Profile Cases: England Proposes to Avoid Pitfalls of a Privacy Law through Strengthening the Law of Confidentiality and a New Human Rights Law Protecting Private Information" @default.
• W262305671 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W262305671 type Work @default.
• W262305671 sameAs 262305671 @default.
• W262305671 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W262305671 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W262305671 hasAuthorship W262305671A5015690974 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C102938260 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C123201435 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C141972696 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C175968658 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W262305671 hasConcept C71745522 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C102938260 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C123201435 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C141972696 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C144024400 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C170706310 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C175968658 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C17744445 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C199539241 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C200635333 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C2777834853 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C2778449503 @default.
• W262305671 hasConceptScore W262305671C71745522 @default.
• W262305671 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W262305671 hasLocation W2623056711 @default.
• W262305671 hasOpenAccess W262305671 @default.
• W262305671 hasPrimaryLocation W2623056711 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W1490105735 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W17712640 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2007931132 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2088533749 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2121697648 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2251342824 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2279866033 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2284588940 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2326725809 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W242816447 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2566671597 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2766961348 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W2883934229 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W3046906296 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W3124259727 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W3125867276 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W3158642166 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W76227627 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W836296019 @default.
• W262305671 hasRelatedWork W3125627531 @default.
• W262305671 hasVolume "71" @default.
• W262305671 isParatext "false" @default.
• W262305671 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W262305671 magId "262305671" @default.
• W262305671 workType "article" @default.