The Principles of Information Protection and Privacy in Australia - Case Study Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Legislation and Journalism Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Introduction Legislation refers to the act of law making aimed at protecting the rights of the citizens. The right of privacy is one such legislation. There has been an increase in privacy intimidation caused by the use of information technology to gather information in every scope. The right of privacy can be debilitated if the laid laws are not clearly enacted due to lack of knowledge on the basis of the real legislation relating to privacy matters. Journalists search, record, question and disclose information to the public. The primary codes of journalism are reverence for reality and the society’s right to gain information. Journalists therefore enable the society to describe itself. They deliver ideas, opinions and information and this is seen as an important role in the communication sector. They enable the society to know about the current happenings by gathering news from all parts of the country and delivering them to the public. Although some journalists work within the private sector, they have public responsibilities because they deliver information to the public. Journalists analyze power and also exercise it and thus should be accountable. Accountability is on the basis of trust from the public since without trust from the public journalists cannot be able fulfill their responsibilities. Therefore they should be honest, fair, and independent and respect the rights of individuals in the society (Schultz 2002). Protection of privacy rights The protection of personal information by government is important because it ensures personal confidence and individuals are able to constantly engage themselves in government activities. In Australia, there are governmental organizations that work to protect privacy rights of the citizens. The organization focuses on public interest on the protection of their private information and freedom. The organizations are dedicated to defending individual rights to and management of private information and issues and prevention of extra intrusion from the journalists. There is the right to know commission which gives the journalists the freedom to access, obtain and deliver information to the public. This commission contradicts the information privacy laws which protect personal information from being accessed by journalists. The commission believes that people should be updated on the current issues and there is a common interest among the media, government and the public. It also believes that there is need for independent and strong news and latest media affairs but this is seen as a threat to the privacy rights and therefore the freedom of the media is undermined. The media at times deals with entertainment issues which do not have strong public attention and this may lead to lack of special protection and privileges from the government. (Tuchman 1998). The right to know commission must look into how the media relates with the government and the citizens to ensure that neither the rights of the media nor the public are undermined. In most cases the public view the media as a threat to their personal information and therefore the government must come up with mechanisms that will change the public opinion on the media. The relationship between the media and the public should be promoted by laying down policies which will fit into the wishes of the media and also on the wishes of the public without undermining the rights of either group. (Australian Code of Ethics 1997). Information privacy The journalists and media organizations view laws about information privacy as a barrier to their jobs and corrosion of the entire society right to know law. This perception is greatly due to the approach in which the privacy laws are being abused and misinterpreted rather than their application for the intended purpose and in the right way. The laws that deal with information privacy in Australia partially concerned only on confidentiality, disclosure of information and secrecy. And they highly limit the freedom of journalists since they are not able to obtain information easily. The laws are concerned with control, accountability and transparency of journalists and they seem to contradict with right to know laws because they limit release of information to the journalists. The rights to know laws are effectively used by individuals, the media and civil society organizations in investigating and opening up government affairs and businesses and this promotes democracy (John 2009). The principles of information protection and privacy at the center of the privacy laws requires the organizations to give details on their systems of keeping records both for their use and when the records might be needed and if they do not release the information to the journalists then the public is not able to know how the organizations operate. .It also gives individuals the right to recover information about themselves if the information had earlier been in the hands of the journalists. If the individuals decide to confiscate the information then it cannot land on the hands of the journalists and this interferes with the gathering and release of the information to the public. The force of information privacy laws on the society’s right to know rule is viewed in two corresponding ways: The laws can lead to easy access of information and affect the organizations and agencies willingness and abilities to reveal information to journalists, reporters and the public and to the degree that privacy laws pertaining to journalists and media organizations can directly undermine media them on the basis of gathering, use and revelation of information and being careful so as to avoid extra intrusion into private information which would lead to repossession of the information. The information privacy principle governs that personal information should be disclosed only for the function of correction or with permission from the concerned individual. However there exist other exceptions but they do not directly relate to the common public interest which would allow disclosure of personal information to the media. On the converse, if the exception applies to media request then the request will be authorized by the under law which enables agencies to differ with the laws that is concerned with personal privacy. This situation is confusing and complex in the way the privacy laws interact with the information privacy principle (Office of the Privacy Commissioner 2007). The commonwealth act gives exclusion and allows the suspension of the information where it engages the irrational disclosure of the personal information. It requires the agencies to put into consideration whether to dispatch the records that contain personal information so as to be able to enquire about the view of the individual in question and the agency does it must take compliance into account. On the decision of seeking out the personal view, there must be a consideration on the degree to which personal information is known by the public or the availability of the information from sources which are accessible by the public. The relationship between the individual and the matter in question in the document which is on demand must be considered. It may also take into consideration any other applicable issue (Erving 1998). The right to know laws prevent organizations from taking custody of information which is already known by the public or is available from other sources. The information privacy laws allows the agencies to widely and carefully withhold the information on the basis that the private information in question is not adequately related to the matter on request and also enables the organization to consider the public attention into getting the information. Penalties for media invasion The view of media on the privacy laws have unluckily been displayed by the possible heavy fines imposed on the journalists who break the laid down privacy laws and by worries that private individuals can use the media as an excuse so as to be paid a ramson on the basis of breaching of the personalities by the media. The government discourages the insult of the privacy laws by journalists to ensure that individual who even on their justified claims, need compensation do not get it so that it does not turn out to be a trend but requires journalists to apologize to their subjects (Nerone 2000). This undermines the work of journalists and inflicts fear on them which makes them to limit collection and dispersion of private information. A study on complainants on the issue of privacy laws in Australia reveals that most complainants are concerned with an apology and an improvement on the way journalists carry out their practices instead of compensation. The individuals are more comfortable with an apology and believe that do not repeat the same mistake in their future work. Financial penalties are not seen as an effective way of punishing the journalists because they usually have money to pay the complainants (David & Stephen 2008). The issues of protection of personal image and publication which strengthen the insult law is viewed as somehow limiting communication between individuals and the press. A look into whether there was irrational invasion into private issues is not usually sufficient and therefore journalists end up being placed at the loose end and this is seen as limiting the freedom of speech and expression (Thomas 1999). The effort to review the privacy must go in the direction that will ensure that the media is not unjustly exposed to unpredictable and inconsistent actions by the individuals. The effect of media intrusion into private affairs acts as a threat and limits the ability of individuals to freely communicate with each other and with the media. In order to scrutinize the mounting pressure on freedom of expression and speech, without putting into consideration the effects of these policies and how they criminalize communication, many reviews on the privacy laws should be made so as to the right to speech and expression is not undermined and look into the welfare of the journalists. (Neil 2002). Surveillance laws There are particular laws that govern the use of several technologies use by journalists such as the CCTV cameras, tracking devices and listening devices. Some of these laws together with central telecommunications interception are governed by the law act to protect private information. If use of these devices by journalists is limited then they are not able to gather information effectively. In response to this issue a number of the laws need to be updated and new ones put in place on how and where the devices should be used. One of the latest introduced laws is the work place surveillance act which monitors individuals within their places of work. Lately, citizens have been proposing for regulation of taking photographs in public settings. Various practices like taking photographs in beaches and change rooms have been termed as crimes in some laws. The surveillance laws strictly apply to media bodies without any exclusion unless if individuals give consent before release of their photographs. Conclusion The privacy laws seem to limit the freedom of expression and speech and undermine the work of journalists in information gathering and dispersion. Therefore there the laws should be revised so that the rights of the journalists are exercised and there is a better understanding of functions these laws and their worth in this information era. The laws should protect the interests of both the public and the media. Bibliography Australian Code of Ethics, 1997, Ethics in Journalism: Report of the Ethics Review Committee, Melbounne University Press, Melbounne. David, C, & Stephen L, The Daily Miracle: An introduction to Journalism, 3rd Edition. Erving, G, 1998, Frame Analysis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. John, F, 2009, Media Release. Retrieved April 1 2010 from . Neil, L., 2002, In Defence of Entrapment in Journalism. Journal of applied philosophy, Vol 19 (2) 121-130 Nerone, G, 2000, Last Rights, Revisiting Theories of the Press, University of Illinois Press, Illinois. Office of the Privacy Commissioner, 2007, Submission to the Australian Law Reform, Review of Privacy. Retrieved April 1, 2010 from Schultz, J, 2002, reviving the fourth estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thomas, L, 1999, The Social Construction of Reality, The Free Press, New York. Tuchman G, 1998, Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality, The Free Press, New York. Read More