Law lords rule there is no right to privacy
Wenn man anfangen will, ueber information privacy ernsthaft zu reden
(wozu zuerst die Abschaffung des Begriffs "Datenschutz" gehoert), muss
man nach Britannien schauen. Die machen keine Spielchen mit schlechter
Eingriffsdogmatik, wie mancher in Freising, sondern nutzen ihren common
sense.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4776433-110247,00.html
*Law lords rule there is no right to privacy*
Decision disappoints mother and son strip-searched in jail
*Clare Dyer, legal correspondent*
*Friday October 17, 2003*
*The Guardian*
Five law lords yesterday rejected an attempt to establish that a right
exists under English law to sue for invasion of privacy.
The ruling, which had been keenly awaited by lawyers, establishes that
there is no "freestanding" right to privacy in English law. Instead,
those seeking damages when their privacy is invaded - including
celebrities such as Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas - will have
to bring their cases under other, well-established types of action, such
as breach of confidence.
The judges upheld a court of appeal decision that Mary Wainwright, 49,
should receive no damages for a strip-search while visiting Armley
prison in Leeds, and that her son, Alan, 25, was entitled to only £3,750
over the incident in January 1997. The two were strip-searched while
visiting Mrs Wainwright's son and Alan's half-brother, Patrick O'Neill,
who was awaiting trial on a murder charge and was suspected of dealing
in drugs while in prison.
The search was carried out in breach of prison rules, which stipulate
that strip-searches must take place in a completely private room, the
person being searched must sign a consent form beforehand, only half the
body should be naked at a time, and no part of the body except hair,
ears and mouth should be touched.
(...)
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx