Privacy laws in the UK

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- Privacy laws in the UK，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了英国的隐私法。英国隐私法经历了从附属到相对独立的发展进程，并确立了两阶层的分析框架，一是确定是否存在合理隐私期待，二是进行个案的利益衡量。两阶层是独立而递进的，考虑的因素有所重叠而又不尽相同。英国隐私法近年来受到欧洲人权公约及欧洲人权法院判例的深刻影响，已经向前迅猛发展。

British privacy law has experienced a development process from attachment to relative independence, and established a two-level analysis framework: the first level is to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; The second level is to measure the interests of individual cases. The two classes are independent and progressive, and the factors considered are overlapped and different. The consideration of public identity, public space, freedom of speech and other factors in the case law and the corresponding rules are worthy of our legislative and judicial reference.

British law does not recognize so-called general privacy rights. This judgment is still valid today, because the general privacy system is incompatible with the inherent cause of action system in British law: according to the cause of action system, only the legal interests that meet the requirements of the cause of action can be protected; Thus, there are only specific protected individual legal interests, but no abstract general rights. As far as privacy protection is concerned, the UK does not have a blanket independent cause of action for invasion of privacy. On the whole, British courts still insist on the incremental development method of cause of action to expand the interpretation of existing infringement, so as to achieve the purpose of privacy protection.

The protection of privacy by traditional common law causes. There are several traditional causes of action in the common law that can provide protection for individual privacy, such as invasion of land, intrusion, violence, defamation and other independent infringement types.

"Trespass to land" means a willful Trespass into land owned or occupied by others. This type of infringement can be used to protect individuals' privacy space and restrict others' access to land. But the establishment of the tort must have physical invasion.

Nuisance, also known as a Nuisance to the environment, is made by the public when it interferes with the use or enjoyment of the land by the landowner, such as making noise, light Nuisance and bad smell. But only the landowner or the land interest person has the right to claim this hindrance behavior, other main body, even if he is in the invaded land, its privacy interest also cannot obtain the full protection.

Battery is the area where an actor deliberately makes harmful or offensive contact with another person. This type of cause can be used to protect individual autonomy and physical integrity from others. But its establishment must be necessary with the intention, and some judicial cases limit this kind of contact to the physical contact.

Defamation, a tort type mainly used to protect personal reputation, can be remedied when personal privacy is violated due to involuntary disclosure or ridicule. However, if the public information is true, it does not constitute a tort; If such public opinion is justified and honest, it does not constitute a tort.

Equity is the protection of privacy. The protection of privacy in British equity law is mainly reflected in the application of breach of duty of confidentiality in practice. According to the rules of equity, the parties are obliged to keep confidential the personal privacy information obtained from the trust relationship. If made public without consent, the party may request the court to issue an injunction or claim damages. There are three elements for breach of duty of confidentiality: first, information about the nature of the individual; Second, there is a relationship of trust; Third, unauthorized disclosure causes others to be harmed. It can be said that this form of responsibility has a wide range of applicability to protect personal information from disclosure, but its biggest limitation lies in: the responsibility is intended to protect the trust relationship between the parties, rather than the privacy information itself; The requirement of trust relationship eliminates the responsibility of obtaining and disclosing personal privacy information which is not based on trust relationship, but the infringement of personal privacy caused by the stranger relationship is the biggest danger faced by modern society.

A new form of independent liability -- liability for misuse of private information. In the United States, warren and brandeis proposed the concept of privacy right because they could not stand the harassment of modern media, which started the development process of privacy right in the United States for one hundred years. In the UK, it can be said that the entanglement and game between modern media and personal privacy has promoted the improvement and development of the personal privacy protection system in the UK. One of its concrete results is the establishment and improvement of the tort liability form of misuse of privacy information.

The privacy law of the United Kingdom establishes a two-level legal analysis framework for the protection of privacy. First, discuss whether the parties have reasonable expectations for personal information. If not, there is no need to provide privacy law protection. If so, the judgment of the second class will be continued -- the conflicting interests will be compared and weighed based on the specific facts of the case. It is common for the conflict between personal privacy and freedom of speech to decide whether to provide protection for personal privacy and restrict other rights and interests. The relationship between the two classes is progressive. Only when the judgment of the first class is established can the interests of the second class be further measured. This basic rule has been repeatedly stressed by judicial precedents. But at the same time, it is worth noting that in British courts, the interests of the second class are often measured at the same time, regardless of whether the first class gives a positive judgment. On the one hand, this is because of the need to respond to the parties' views on the measurement of interests; More importantly, the conflict between privacy right and freedom of speech constitutes the conflict between the two basic values of a democratic society. Therefore, whatever rights the court ultimately upholds must be justified. Reasonable expectation of privacy rules. The so-called reasonable expectation of privacy refers to that the ordinary party with general rationality is in the position of the victim. It is reasonable to believe that the relevant personal information belongs to privacy and should be kept private rather than made public. When judging whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, British courts generally focus on the nature of information, the identity of public figures, name-seeking behavior, public space and other factors.

British courts tend to classify personal information according to the degree of association between personal information and personal dignity and the general social consciousness. In general, information about personal health, personal relationships, sexual relationships, housing, etc., is often identified as having reasonable expectations. But this type of treatment is not rigid, the British court stressed that the specific information for a case-by-case analysis of the judicial trial.

Under the influence of article 10 of the European convention on human rights and the precedents of the European court of human rights, the privacy law of the United Kingdom takes the identity of public figures as an important factor to judge the reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals, and gradually establishes a number of legal rules. First, the identity of a public figure is not itself a reason for information disclosure. It is a basic judgment that public figures should also enjoy the right to privacy. A public figure may disclose a part of his or her life, but that does not automatically make it in the public interest for him or her to disclose other personal information that he or she does not disclose. Second, the status of a public figure should be judged on the individual. Generally speaking, the identity of a public figure is not transitive, that is, a person does not automatically become a public figure because his friends or relatives are public figures. Whether a person has the status of a public figure or not must be judged comprehensively by combining his/her position, life experience and daily behavior. For example, in the case of Rocknroll v News Group Newspaper Ltd, the applicant did not become a public figure because of his marriage to a famous actor. The court considered his conservative behavior in private companies and dealing with the media and other factors, and finally determined that he was not a public figure.

The so-called behavior of seeking fame refers to the behavior that the doer voluntarily discloses personal information by accepting media interview and using media to conduct public debate. Privacy laws to evaluate behavior as the important factors that limit the scope of privacy, that person use the media platform release information, such as implementation for reputation, win public support, obtain economic benefits was awarded ", "the purpose, its nature should be limited to the corresponding privacy, shall be borne by has the privacy of personal information and the interest of public information is difficult to distinguish between the adverse consequences. However, it is worth noting that the history of behavior of the actor should be examined to see whether there is a behavior of nominative behavior, which should not be limited to individual and independent behaviors of the actor. For example, in the case of Rocknroll v News Group Newspaper Ltd, individual interviewed behaviors are not enough to constitute nominative behavior. On the contrary, Rocknroll's conservative attitude towards the media proves that there is no positive name-seeking behavior.

After personal information is made public, whether it is still private and to what extent it is still protected is a problem that public space or public information defense needs to solve. Different from American privacy law, which regards public space defense as a complete defense, British privacy law takes a relatively conservative attitude towards public space defense. On the one hand, it thinks that public space can be a defense to eliminate reasonable expectation of privacy; on the other hand, it thinks that public space defense is subject to certain restrictions. Personal information does not necessarily become public information due to its disclosure. Whether or not to become public information, should consider the way and scope of information disclosure, access to information and the possibility of convenience and other factors. The right holder has the right to choose to disclose his/her personal information to a certain extent, such as allowing friends to take photos in private parties and spread in private friend circles, but does not mean that he/she agrees to disclose the information in a wider range. Similarly, information made public within a certain scope does not necessarily lose its privacy and become public information. For example, in the case of Rocknroll v News Group Newspaper Ltd, the court took into consideration the specific characteristics of the public platform, the difficulty of search and the timely withdrawal of information, and finally decided that the relevant personal information had not entered the public space and had not become public information, but still needed to be protected.

Privacy is not, of course, excluded from public Spaces, where even the most mundane everyday activities, such as shopping for groceries or strolling in parks or streets, can become personal. Courts have generally held that the re-dissemination of photographs taken in public Spaces still involves a privacy issue - agreeing to be photographed is not the same as agreeing to publish. Whether the photos taken in public space have private content or not, we should focus on whether they are targeted at the right owner, that is, the relevant information of the right owner constitutes the main content of the photos, rather than just as an irrelevant foil.

Benefit measurement rule. At the interest measurement level, the court mainly considers whether the disclosure of personal information conforms to the public interest, whether it conforms to the principle of proportion, and considers the impact of disclosure on stakeholders and other factors. Whether it conforms to the public interest or not is the center of interest measurement. The specific factors involved include the nature of information, the identity of public figures and the necessity of eliminating public misunderstanding.

Although the nature of information is taken as an important factor in the consideration of courts in both levels, the perspectives of the two levels are different. In the expectation level of reasonable privacy, courts consider more about the importance of information to individuals, while in the interest measurement level, courts focus on the importance of information to the public interest. The court divides speech information into speech about economic, social and political life, speech about knowledge and education, and speech for entertainment, and assigns different importance. Information classification is to determine which information is truly conducive to public discussion and thus meets the requirements of public interest -- this is the basic rule of public interest judgment. Since the establishment of Caroline von Hannover v. Germany case of the European court of human rights and Mosley v News Newspapers case, this rule has become the core rule of British privacy law. Whether it really contributes to public discussion can be considered in combination with subjective and objective aspects. The objective aspect is mainly to examine whether the content of the information itself really contributes to the formation of a real public discussion, rather than purely satisfying readers' curiosity. In the subjective aspect, the subjective purpose of information release is taken into consideration. At this time, the court can consider whether the information release is for the purpose of promoting public discussion in combination with factors such as the time point of information release.

Reasonable expectation in class, English courts are public figures to identity a narrowed eye often, on the one hand, the cognizance of limiting public figure, on the other hand guard because public figures identity itself and restrict individual privacy, but the measure class interests, the court of public figures as a factor of consideration has come up with various attitudes. At this time, the identity of public figures is often considered in combination with the requirements of model behavior and the elimination of public misunderstanding. In the case of A v B PLC, the court held that public figures should be role models and that the media had the right to be open about their misconduct. This way of imposing model behavior requirements on public figures undoubtedly greatly limits the privacy space of public figures. In the subsequent Mosley v News Group Newspapers case, the rule was properly reconciled and the requirement of model behavior was weakened. It was not considered that any improper behaviors of public figures could not be tolerated, thus giving the media the right of publicity. But the courts still lack a common standard for what kind of public figure is required to meet the standards of exemplary behavior, what kind of behavior is sufficiently inappropriate to require disclosure, and so on. Related to this is the need to dispel public misconceptions. If a public figure sets up a wrong image in the public's mind with his positive behavior, and the disclosure of information will help restore and clarify the fact, the information has the reason to be disclosed. Unlike the role models passively imposed on public figures, eliminating public misunderstanding focuses on whether there is positive behavior, thus justifying privacy restrictions. In the case of Campbell v MGN Limited, the court held that Campbell actively shaped its image of not taking drugs, publicly stressed that it did not take drugs for many times and promoted itself as a difference from other models. Public misunderstanding caused by such positive behaviors must be eliminated. If disclosure may cause harm to parties or stakeholders, the court will consider strengthening the protection of privacy and restricting freedom of speech. In the case of Campbell v MGN Limited, the court considered the influence of specific information of open treatment on Campbell's drug treatment. In Murray v Big Pictures Limited, the court held that allowing disclosure could disrupt a child's peaceful life or even cause unnecessary harassment... Courts are more inclined to protect privacy if there is potential harm.

In addition to the above factors, the court will also consider such factors as the freedom of media to choose the way of reporting, the way of obtaining private information, and the severity of measures, etc. in the interest measurement stage, so as to make an accurate interest measurement.

To sum up, the privacy law of the UK has been greatly influenced by the European convention on human rights and the precedents of the European court of human rights in recent years, and has developed rapidly -- which can be seen from the misuse of privacy information to an independent cause of tort to protect privacy. In fact, the further research on these issues will be beneficial to accurately grasp the development trend of privacy law in the UK and even the world, and further beneficial to China's personality rights legislation and system design.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供北美作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。