(UK) What happened to the right to privacy?!?!

b743k

I turned on ITV's This Morning and just now they had a 'Crime File' segment which was appealing for information abouit various crimes. One of the crimes was a brutal assault on a man on a night out. They had no suspects but 3 guys were in the background of a few photos in a club and these images were really clear and blown up. They were looking for these three men in case they saw anything about the crime or indeed commited it.

While I believe that finding the assaulter would be a great outcome is it right that these three guys who could very well be completely innocent should have their face broadcast nationally like that?

AeoNGriM

Given away to the IMF/ECB along with our national pride and economic sovereignty.

:pac:

b743k

It's a British show. I can understand it happening in a case where it is an image of the criminal but to be a by stander and have your photo up is outrageous I think.

Son Of A Vidic

b743k wrote: »

They were looking for these three men in case they saw anything about the crime or indeed commited it.

I think that answers your question, but if indeed these three men were possibly involved in carrying out the assault. What benefit would be served by obscuring their faces and thus preventing potential identification? As a result, I think their privacy is a non-issue in this instance.

Potential-Monke

If it manages to catch the culprit i can't see why not

Seachmall

I completely agree but I do see the point of it at the same time.

These guys may have been involved or witnessed it and they should come forward but if they were simply bystanders they should have that choice, not dumped with having their face on TV or the pressure that comes with that.

Although I will say that when these types of TV shows show a face and say they may have information and should come forward they mean "these guys did it, we saw it, we want to find them".

The idea being that if someone recognises the faces and are told they're involved they may be hesitant or dismiss it as someone who just looks like their friend or family member ("Johnny would never do that, must just be someone who looks like him") whereas if the show says this person might have witnessed a crime it's easier for people to accept it as the person they know and thus might put more pressure on them to come forward.

Lord TSC

Strikes me they are 99% sure these guys did it and are trying to see if they can get a tip off on their location.

Besides, it always strikes me that if you've nothing to hide, the right to privacy isn't a big deal. If they are innocent, they shouldn't be bothered about being asked if they saw anything...

b743k

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I think that answers your question, but if indeed these three men were possibly involved in carrying out the assault. What benefit would be served by obscuring their faces and thus preventing potential identification? As a result, I think their privacy is a non-issue in this instance.

So if you were on a night out and ended up being in the background of someone's photo (it often happens) and there was an assault on the same night which you had nothing to do with or even saw, you would be fine with your face being broadcast on a national tv programme with the implication that you could be involved?

Seachmall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Besides, it always strikes me that if you've nothing to hide, the right to privacy isn't a big deal. If they are innocent, they shouldn't be bothered about being asked if they saw anything...

I wouldn't want my face plastered on some TV show for just being in some spot at the wrong time. Maybe I did see the crime, maybe I didn't but either way I could have a good reason not to come forward.

digme

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I think that answers your question, but if indeed these three men were possibly involved in carrying out the assault. What benefit would be served by obscuring their faces and thus preventing potential identification? As a result, I think their privacy is a non-issue in this instance.

Guilt by association, ever think of that?

Lord TSC

Seachmall wrote: »

I wouldn't want my face plastered on some TV show for just being in some spot at the wrong time. Maybe I did see the crime, maybe I didn't but either way I could have a good reason not to come forward.

And that's why they never would put your face on TV unless they were sure you were involved.

They aren't stupid. They won't implicate someone unless they are 99% sure they can back things up. They won't stick your face up on TV and suggest you may have done something unless they know you have, otherwise you'd get sued.

But I know if it were me, and I knew I was innocent, I'd laugh. I'd have the picture in my sig. I'd think it was hilarious. But that's my innocent soul talking :P

b743k

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Strikes me they are 99% sure these guys did it and are trying to see if they can get a tip off on their location.

Besides, it always strikes me that if you've nothing to hide, the right to privacy isn't a big deal. If they are innocent, they shouldn't be bothered about being asked if they saw anything...

I hate this arguement that is always thrown up, 'if you've nothing to hide', that's not the point. I've nothing to hide but that doesn't mean that my face is public property.

AeoNGriM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Strikes me they are 99% sure these guys did it and are trying to see if they can get a tip off on their location.

Besides, it always strikes me that if you've nothing to hide, the right to privacy isn't a big deal. If they are innocent, they shouldn't be bothered about being asked if they saw anything...

That's fair enough, but you should still support peoples right to uphold their own personal privacy. I'm sure you do, and something's getting lost along the way as I read your comment. People should have the right to choose for themselves.

Regarding the OP, would any of the 3 shown in the footage have a case for claiming their privacy has been breached by having their faces shown on TV like that and seeking some sort of compo?

b743k

AeoNGriM wrote: »

That's fair enough, but you should still support peoples right to uphold their own personal privacy. I'm sure you do, and something's getting lost along the way as I read your comment. People should have the right to choose for themselves.

Regarding the OP, would any of the 3 shown in the footage have a case for claiming their privacy has been breached by having their faces shown on TV like that and seeking some sort of compo?

I really don't know. If it was me I would be beyond furious.

Lord TSC

AeoNGriM wrote: »

That's fair enough, but you should still support peoples right to uphold their own personal privacy. I'm sure you do, and something's getting lost along the way as I read your comment. People should have the right to choose for themselves.

Regarding the OP, would any of the 3 shown in the footage have a case for claiming their privacy has been breached by having their faces shown on TV like that and seeking some sort of compo?

Yeah, I'm not against right to privacy. I wouldn't want, for example, the contents of my internet browsing history plastered online or want someone knowing my inner thoughts. I'm not proposing Big Brother here. But there's a difference between keeping privacy on that sort of info and having a picture of your face broadcast for one reason or another.

But in this case, my point is that the police will only put your face out there like that if they are sure you've done what they are saying you have. They wouldn't put themselves into a position whereby they can get sued for slander or the likes. If you've nothing to hide, chances are your face won't pop up one day on a random show like this.

Andrew33

Even though our legal system is based on the UK's there are a lot of differences, the media there will name people who have been simply brought in for questioning whereas here a person can go through the whole arrested/charged process and not be named until after conviction.

b743k

This is the case, the website doesn't have the photos though.

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/crime-file-20110929/

CASE TWO: MAIDSTONE ASSAULT
INCIDENT: At around 01:30am on 25th June 2011 a 45-year-old man is alleged to have been punched in the face in Maidstone town centre. He required 30 stitches to a wound between his nose and upper lip.
GET IN CONTACT: Anyone who has any information can contact Kent Police on 01622 604283, quoting crime reference CY/009894/11, or call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

al28283

a show like crimestoppers is produced in cooperation with the police. These images would be released by the police as people of interest to them in regards to the case.

AeoNGriM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not against right to privacy. I wouldn't want, for example, the contents of my internet browsing history plastered online or want someone knowing my inner thoughts. I'm not proposing Big Brother here. But there's a difference between keeping privacy on that sort of info and having a picture of your face broadcast for one reason or another.

But in this case, my point is that the police will only put your face out there like that if they are sure you've done what they are saying you have. They wouldn't put themselves into a position whereby they can get sued for slander or the likes. If you've nothing to hide, chances are your face won't pop up one day on a random show like this.

I don't see the distinction. If someone broadcast your face on tv in connection with a crime yet you had nothing to do with it, and you started getting hassle from people who thought you were involved in something illegal, that would be an invasion of your privacy would it not?

And with regard to having nothing to hide, what if you are completely innocent of a crime but DO have something to hide, for example your sexuality, or the fact that you like to crossdress now and again? If your face is broadcast on TV kissing another bloke, or wearing stockings and suspenders, would you not be extremely pissed off and looking for some sort of legal action?

I have a question, are you LEGALLY bound to act as a witness to a crime? If not, then what business do the cops have broadcasting your face on tv mentioning that you are a person of interest who may have information?

mikemac

AeoNGriM wrote: »

I have a question, are you LEGALLY bound to act as a witness to a crime?

No

But if you give a statement and then withdraw it or change your story you can have issues

Lord TSC

AeoNGriM wrote: »

I don't see the distinction. If someone broadcast your face on tv in connection with a crime yet you had nothing to do with it, and you started getting hassle from people who thought you were involved in something illegal, that would be an invasion of your privacy would it not?

And with regard to having nothing to hide, what if you are completely innocent of a crime but DO have something to hide, for example your sexuality, or the fact that you like to crossdress now and again? If your face is broadcast on TV kissing another bloke, or wearing stockings and suspenders, would you not be extremely pissed off and looking for some sort of legal action?

So let me get this straight. The arguement is it would be a breech of privacy if photos were taken of you crossdressing or kissing a guy and if they were published on TV....but wouldn't you have to be partaking in these activities in public in order for these pictures to be taken?

Besides, I'm not advocating a show where we take pictures of people on the street and go "Look at Jim! He's a gay crossdresser. He's outed now!". I'm not saying the police should sneak into people's houses and take pictures of people in private and then broadcast them on the news.

What I'm saying is that in cases like this, the police have a picture of people they think commited a crime. They have a reason to think this, even if it isn't public. And they've put a picture of these guys, who aren't doing anything they want to keep private, on TV asking people if they know them. If they are accusing them of whatever, it's because they have proof of some kind. They aren't showing them doing anything private.

AeoNGriM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

So let me get this straight. The arguement is it would be a breech of privacy if photos were taken of you crossdressing or kissing a guy and if they were published on TV....but wouldn't you have to be partaking in these activities in public in order for these pictures to be taken?

Besides, I'm not advocating a show where we take pictures of people on the street and go "Look at Jim! He's a gay crossdresser. He's outed now!". I'm not saying the police should sneak into people's houses and take pictures of people in private and then broadcast them on the news.

What I'm saying is that in cases like this, the police have a picture of people they think commited a crime. They have a reason to think this, even if it isn't public. And they've put a picture of these guys, who aren't doing anything they want to keep private, on TV asking people if they know them. If they are accusing them of whatever, it's because they have proof of some kind. They aren't showing them doing anything private.

Why can't a person consent to being seen in public, but not being seen in public on national TV? It's perfectly reasonable.

Just because I'm sucking some bloke off in a public park doesn't mean I consent to it being shown on TV!

Lord TSC

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Why can't a person consent to being seen in public, but not being seen in public on national TV? It's perfectly reasonable.

Just because I'm sucking some bloke off in a public park doesn't mean I consent to it being shown on TV!

Which is why you won't see it on TV anyway :S

Again, not encouraging TV shows to start broadcasting pictures of you kissing a guy for the fun of it. But if, say, you were pictured kissing the guy and then the guy was found dead later, those pictures should be broadcast if they don't know who you are and they want to talk to you. You'd be relevant to the case and they'd need to contact you.

AeoNGriM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Which is why you won't see it on TV anyway :S

Again, not encouraging TV shows to start broadcasting pictures of you kissing a guy for the fun of it. But if, say, you were pictured kissing the guy and then the guy was found dead later, those pictures should be broadcast if they don't know who you are and they want to talk to you. You'd be relevant to the case and they'd need to contact you.

As I understand it, without any supporting evidence you would be a person of interest, not a suspect and as you are not legally obliged to co-operate with their enquiries, they still don't have the right to plaster your face all over the tv. Besides, do they think people are going to fall over themselves to assist with their enquiries if they broadcast images of them with their hands down another chaps caks for all to see?

Seachmall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

So let me get this straight. The arguement is it would be a breech of privacy if photos were taken of you crossdressing or kissing a guy and if they were published on TV....but wouldn't you have to be partaking in these activities in public in order for these pictures to be taken?

Maybe you're a battered wife who left her husband and are living/hiding in a nearby shelter.
Maybe you had to move after threats on your life by local criminals because you reported a crime.

There are tons of reasons as to why someone may not want their face on TV.

b743k

I don't think that you even need a reason not to want your face plastered on tv other than it's my face.

If you were innocent and your boss or coworkers saw this photo on tv it could cause big problems as people do think that there's no smoke without fire.

Lord TSC

b743k wrote: »

If you were innocent and your boss or coworkers saw this photo on tv it could cause big problems as people do think that there's no smoke without fire.

Which is why police will not put your picture up unless they are confident you are guilty!

What I'm talking about here is a decision the police have to make; do you risk embarrasing someone in a bid to find your prime suspect in a crime? Different people will have different answers for that. I fully appreciate people's arguements with regard having their faces put on TV, but the police do that because they think it's relevant to solving a crime.
If you don't commit a crime, your face won't be put on TV. Even if your a suspect, chances are they won't put the embarrasing picture up; to use the earlier example, it's unlikely they'll show the two people kissing. They'll show them standing together, then show the face and say they need to find this person.

We aren't talking about doing this for the fun of it. When they put the pictures up, it's to try and solve a crime!

AeoNGriM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Which is why police will not put your picture up unless they are confident you are guilty!

*snip*

We aren't talking about doing this for the fun of it. When they put the pictures up, it's to try and solve a crime!

Confident isn't 100% sure, and it still doesn't matter what their reasoning is. People have a right to privacy.

Also, cops can and have made monumental mistakes in the past.

Procasinator

Generally speaking, you can't expect privacy in a public place. If the people were filmed in a public place, then they can be broadcasted. Much like someone can take a photo of you in public and put it up on Facebook if they wanted.

If they implicate you in a crime you didn't commit, this would be an invasion of privacy but closer to defamation.

Crime stoppers are usually careful to state they are looking for people because they were in the vicinity of the crime area, rather than saying they are suspects. So in this case, there is no defamation either.

b743k

Procasinator wrote: »

Generally speaking, you can't expect privacy in a public place. If the people were filmed in a public place, then they can be broadcasted. Much like someone can take a photo of you in public and put it up on Facebook if they wanted.

If they implicate you in a crime you didn't commit, this would be an invasion of privacy but closer to defamation.

Crime stoppers are usually careful to state they are looking for people because they were in the vicinity of the crime area, rather than saying they are suspects. So in this case, there is no defamation either.

So if you leave your front door then you should be ok with ending up on tv?

AeoNGriM

Procasinator wrote: »

Generally speaking, you can't expect privacy in a public place. If the people were filmed in a public place, then they can be broadcasted. Much like someone can take a photo of you in public and put it up on Facebook if they wanted.

If they implicate you in a crime you didn't commit, this would be an invasion of privacy but closer to defamation.

Crime stoppers are usually careful to state they are looking for people because they were in the vicinity of the crime area, rather than saying they are suspects. So in this case, there is no defamation either.

Of course you can expect privacy in a public place, why can't you? Just because you walk outside your home without your face covered doesn't mean you are giving people permission to reproduce your likeness or post photographs of you in the public domain. There's a difference between being seen and being scrutinised. Of course, the exception to this rule are celebrities who live in the public domain.

Your Facebook example is fundamentally flawed as Facebook is not a public service like the police department or a national television broadcaster are. Besides, if I appeared in a photo on someone else FB page, I could request that FB remove the picture and they would be obliged to remove it.

Procasinator

b743k wrote: »

So if you leave your front door then you should be ok with ending up on tv?

Often enough, provisions are made in law to avoid situations like this where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy might be considered when you are in your home, but unlikely to be the case when you are walking down the road.

This is photos in general, but a lot of it applies to the likes of Crime stoppers:
http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people-without-asking

AeoNGriM

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Of course you can expect privacy in a public place, why can't you? Just because you walk outside your home without your face covered doesn't mean you are giving people permission to reproduce your likeness or post photographs of you in the public domain. There's a difference between being seen and being scrutinised. Of course, the exception to this rule are celebrities who live in the public domain.

Your Facebook example is fundamentally flawed as Facebook is not a public service like the police department or a national television broadcaster are. Besides, if I appeared in a photo on someone else FB page, I could request that FB remove the picture and they would be obliged to remove it.

No you're not giving them permission, but they don't need it.

I'm dusgusted by the idea that it's ok to do it to some people, but not others.

In ethics yes, that statement can be made, but not in law.

melekalikimaka

if you are in view from a public place you no longer hold your right to privacy except under certain circumstances.

theres no legal definition of privacy, its a joke of a word in the realms of the law.

speaking as a photographer

melekalikimaka

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Of course you can expect privacy in a public place, why can't you?

because the law states the EXACT opposite, its a public place, you have very little privacy in a public place i'm afraid, and the best part is, i dont even need your permission to video you or take you photo and theres sweet feck all you can do.

however ethically i'd giz ya a holla first

Procasinator

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Of course you can expect privacy in a public place, why can't you? Just because you walk outside your home without your face covered doesn't mean you are giving people permission to reproduce your likeness or post photographs of you in the public domain. There's a difference between being seen and being scrutinised. Of course, the exception to this rule are celebrities who live in the public domain.

Sorry to say, that is not the case. If you are in the public, people can take photos of you. They can publish them too - just not for commercial reasons.

melekalikimaka

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Besides, if I appeared in a photo on someone else FB page, I could request that FB remove the picture and they would be obliged to remove it.

only in relation to defamation or slander, they don't HAVE to but may out of good will

AeoNGriM

Balls! Right that's it! I'm buying a burqa to stop all you pervs from taking pics of me!

melekalikimaka

few months time you wont be able to wear em in public

AeoNGriM

melekalikimaka wrote: »

few months time you wont be able to wear em in public

Well then, my underpants will have to suffice. Skiddies on the outside, ofcourse.