Term papers writing service


Do people in public life have a right to privacy essay

Hire Writer While we tend to despise the way the press is treating ordinary people and feel the justification for their right to privacy, we have problems applying the same to people who were seeking a public role.

How to cite this page

In those cases we tend to think we have a right to the invasion of their privacy, since they have put themselves into the public eye on purpose. We are satisfying our voyeurism and we even claim that we have a right to it, but by that we submit ourselves to the tabloid values of a mainstream media and put that under the cover of public interest. What is public interest?

  • Many of these technologies were being adopted and implemented outside legal protections;
  • The most popular forms of biometric ID are retina scans, hand geometry, thumb scans, finger prints, voice recognition, and digitized electronically stored photographs;
  • Simon Davies "Re-engineering the right to privacy;
  • The systems can often work in pitch blackness, bringing images up to daylight level;
  • Modern information systems are increasingly interoperable with other systems, and can mutually exchange and process different forms of data.

But public interest is not necessarily what the public is interested in, which is usually sex and crime; it is not what increases the circulation of a paper; it is not gossip. Public interest is the necessity to have access to essential information that allows us to keep a critical eye on our society. The position of politicians in the eye of the public is especially difficult to judge. On the one hand politicians use their happy family and home in campaigns, on the other hand we know personal particulars and behaviour have nothing to do with competence in running a country and private details, even if completely irrelevant, can still ruin careers.

Do People in Public Life Have a Right to Privacy? Essay

This is a sad fact, but it does not justify intrusion of the personal lives of all politicians. A politician still is, like everyone else, entitled to privacy.

Since their private lives are so closely observed, politicians are concentrating a lot on their image and consequently they have less time to spend on their actual job. This close scrutiny is not only humiliating, it also makes poor political performances more likely. If the public lost its big interest in private lives, political coverage and also politicians themselves would have to focus more on policies and actions.

Everyone would have to stop making privacy an issue, which has no place in politics. However, competence seems to count less and less nowadays and politicians are rather supposed to have a good character. People are inclined to think that one who betrays his wife also betrays his country, which generally not the case.

Celebrities deserve privacy Essay

Would we rather have a morally integer, but less competent person in power? A lot of good leaders of the past would probable fail today, for example Kennedy, who committed adultery, or Kreisky, who had a speech impediment.

Many talented people do not manage to reach a high position today, because they have no blameless personal lives and many are kept from seeking a public office, because they fear the intrusion of privacy. Politicians have to be observed in some respects.

The press, being independent from any authorities, plays an important role in informing the public; it is the instrument that can expose corruption, wasting of taxes, hidden agendas or other crimes by examining actions and words of politicians.

Naturally, there is no clear dividing line between public and private matter. Intrusion of privacy should only be allowed in cases where privacy is strongly connected to the public office.

It just prejudices people against them and this can clearly not be in the public interest. People claimed the whole scandal was not about sex, but about committing perjury, which is not quite true. A perjury of Clinton about a land deal would have probable not interested as many, but this one was about sex, so the interest was enormous.

Clinton was asked something he should have never been asked. Private questions — such as: Because if one refuses an answer to a query like that, it is a signal that there is something to hide.

Since you hardly find someone who has never done anything wrong or illegal, it is especially unlikely to find a politician like that.

  • Wiretapping abuses have been detected in most countries, sometimes occurring on a vast scale involving thousands of illegal taps;
  • In many countries, laws have not kept up with the technology, leaving significant gaps in protections;
  • The campaign has had two legal strategies;
  • They can bug conversations, analyze computer and keyboard work, peer through CCTV cameras, use tracking technology to monitor personal movements, analyze urine to detect drug use, and demand the disclosure of intimate personal data;
  • To ensure laws are consistent with Pan-European laws.

So politicians have two possibilities when they are asked questions about their private lives: For celebrities, other than politicians, it is even more difficult to argue for their right to privacy, since so many of them use their status of being popular and seem to enjoy sharing private details and creating sensational news to stay well known or to make money. Publicity should be expected by them and loss of privacy is said to be the prize for fame. But does every skier, musician or actor really just want to be in the public eye?

Is not also imaginable that a tennis player just loves to play tennis and detests being on television? We can reduce those people to the fact that they are famous, but it would show little acknowledgement for their talents or abilities.

Sometimes this has great consequence as in the case of Princess Diana, who died in a car accident after being chased by reporters. If people similar to us, ordinary people, get their privacy invaded, we are outraged. But someone different to us, someone famous, somehow has the duty to uncover everything there is.

  • Users of the Internet can employ a range of programs and systems which will ensure varying degrees of privacy and security of communications;
  • Each human deserves privacy because sometimes there are such events that people do not want to share with anyone;
  • But public interest is not necessarily what the public is interested in, which is usually sex and crime; it is not what increases the circulation of a paper; it is not gossip.

Since they have voluntarily thrown themselves into the public light, they now belong to the public. Political scandals have shown the need for close observation of public figures, especially if they have power, but in most cases we hypocritically claim to have a right to know about something that is actually none of our business. Privacy is classed as a right under the European Convention of Human Rights and it applies to everyone. How to cite this page Choose cite format:

  1. The Internet will revolutionize access to basic information on government services. In many of the countries where privacy is not explicitly recognized in the Constitution, such as the United States, Ireland and India, the courts have found that right in other provisions.
  2. The first made it mandatory for all digital telephone switches, cellular and satellite phones and all developing communication technologies to build in surveillance capabilities; the second sought to limit the dissemination of software that provides encryption, a technique which allows people to scramble their communications and files to prevent others from reading them.
  3. Judgment of June 16, 1858, Trib. Article 25 of the Directive stipulates that in many circumstances, the level of protection in the receiving country must be "adequate" - an expression which is widely accepted to mean "equivalent".