Page 165 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
The terrorist attacks may also impact on other areas of surveillance and privacy. Immediately
after 11 September 2001, the Home Secretary David Blunkett suggested that the British
Government was sympathetic to the introduction of identity cards in order to combat the
threat from terrorists and bogus asylum seekers. It was suggested that the card, which would
include a computer chip to hold detailed information about the bearer’s physical
characteristics, age, address, social security data, health records and, in all probability, traffic
offences, outstanding warrants for arrest and criminal offences, could also function as a
driving licence, credit card and store card to make it more acceptable to consumers.

It has been argued in several quarters that the impact of such a card would be to stunt the
embryonic right to privacy and transgress data protection rights. For identity cards to be
effective, the police would have to be granted powers to stop people at random to demand
sight of the card. Although proponents of the system argue that those with nothing to hide
have nothing to fear, the real danger is that each individual will be allocated a central number
around which will accumulate a huge amount of personal information from each and every
arm of the State. In view of the power that the card would confer, some commentators have
suggested that at stake is the very nature of our society and the power and authority of the
State over the individual and his privacy. The Government seems to have backed down on
the idea of identity cards in the weeks following the terrorist attacks, although some
commentators believe that it has simply been put on hold.

8.5.3 Impact on the media

It seems likely that the HRA will have a major impact on the media. It is arguable that the
Press Complaints Committee and the Broadcasting Standards Committee are ‘public
authorities’. If they are, they must conduct themselves within the provisions of the HRA.
Failure to supply a system that provides complainants with proper protection for their Article
8 right may amount to unlawful action under Section 6 of the HRA, and entitlement to
damages or an injunction.

8.5.4 A ‘Privacy Act’

The difficulty in drafting a statutory right of privacy lies in producing a coherent and
infallible definition of privacy that sits comfortably with any possible defences to the tort –
such as, for example, a ‘public interest’ defence. Any analysis of the ‘public interest’ defence
must take into account the concept of ‘proportionality’ to the legitimate aim to be achieved
– after all, a sledgehammer should not be used to crush a nut. Defences of ‘innocent
infringement’, consent, privilege, legal authority and protection of property and legitimate
business interests have also been suggested. As noted above, this is not a new problem. The
various Royal Commissions have grappled with this difficulty over the years, and have not
as yet managed to produce a satisfactory legal definition of privacy.
128