Whether an act committed by Cyril against Teresa falls under the ambit of violating the Right to privacy of Teresa?
In the light of present facts and circumstances of the matter, Cyril being a keen gazer of planets have a telescope that he uses to fulfill his interest by gazing to the planets and also has purchased a new telescope of the art Orion 10029 StarBlast 90mm for his newly purchased sky apartment. As per the interest of Cyril, he can be found gazing at the planets every evening. Cyril once during his planet gazing session notices Teresa who lives in an apartment across the way, leading a yoga class in the lounge. Cyril started peeping into the window of Teresa daily and also discussed the same with his friends. According to the common law of Right to Privacy, no person or body has the power to violate and interfere in the private matters of any other individual or any organization. If any individual feels that there has been any breach of principles of privacy, they can complain about it to the Privacy Commissioner. If the complaint cannot be settled or handled by the commissioner appointed the matter can be directly referred to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and if the Tribunal finds the matter under the breach of privacy the matter is brought to a reward or remedies but on the exception that the matter shall not be enforceable in the court.
As an adviser to Teresa, I would suggest that the matter of privacy is not enforceable in the court because the Privacy Act is based on the principles, the complaint must be made to the commissioner appointed to deal with the matters of the privacy and should only allege the matters of interference with privacy. Commissioner has no rights and powers to fine or to prosecute any individual or any organization to pay damages or compensation to any other body or individual. We can take actions against the situation based on an act of molestation and harassment, as the act of suddenly looking at another person's window and noticing the activities converted to the daily basis task and was even shared with other people which was a violation of the rights of privacy and an act of harassment and molestation against women without her knowledge in the first instance.
The act committed by Cyril was against the safety of Teresa therefore, as per the Act any action of an individual which is against the safety and privacy of another individual, which includes fear for the safety and the individual committing it is doing intentionally shall amount to an act of harassment. The penalty for such action is that an accused shall be convicted under the Act and can be jailed up to two years or under the Act of 1933. The Act deals with the collecting of personal information and disclosing of the personal information, it is more in concern to the information collected about the personal issues of an individual that violating other aspects of privacy of any individual. Under common law looking into the house of someone in violation of privacy for other persons and shall amount to punishment (D'Costa, & Ojha, 2019).
Abovementioned facts and circumstances show the work done on the part of Cyril, as Cyril once accidentally looked into the window across the house and later converted it into a habit also discussed it with his friends and the act was of violation of the privacy of other indirectly, and Cyril shall be liable for the act he committed. Under the mentioned Act Cyril should be convicted and punished for the same. Therefore, Teresa has the right to file complaints against Cyril for interfering in the daily matters Teresa without her consent a has also violated the rights of personal liberty and space by peeing into the house through the window and noticing her every activity.
In the light of present facts and circumstances Cyril has shot a video of Teresa and group doing yoga and also the footage shot includes an unflattering butt image when the group is in the downward dog position also has posted the same footage on the social networking sites like Instagram and Facebook. The footage turns out to be a hit on social media because of the images of the yoga. After watching the video, a television program Kiwis Silly Moments plans to use the video for an upcoming episode which is against the will and consent of Teresa.
As an adviser to Teresa, I would suggest that the act committed by Cyril of shooting video footage and sharing it on the social media amount to the crime committed under the Act of Right to privacy, Cyber-crime and Broadcasting Act. Therefore, it is liable for conviction under the law. Any act committed without the consent and permission of another person is liable for the punishment under the law. Also, the television show KSM (Kiwis Silly Moments) has planned to use it for its next episode without acknowledging it to Teresa, therefore it is the breach of personal space and liberty and right to privacy. Cyril can also be convicted under the law for harassing Teresa by posting her yoga footage on social media without her consent and knowledge of the shooting the video. According to Vogel, Shanahan & Signorielli, disclosing of personal information with consent it the right of individual unless it is an obscene content and is violative to the norms and right of the society. Also, if any such personal information has been uploaded or shared by the other person without the consent of another person in violation of the rights and liberties of the person and shall amount to the interference in the personal ambit of an individual without acknowledging him or her, and such action shall amount to the conviction of the accused. Furthermore, it is been discussed that implications for the application for the contemporary theory of cultivation on social media and posting of the context on social media are the use of the privacy attitudes of self - disclosure.
According to the common law of the Right to Privacy of an individual Cyril has violated the principles and has interfered with the matters of Teresa also, without the consent and knowledge of Teresa shot footage of her with the yoga group in the downwards dog position and uploaded on the social media. Such an act of interference is punishable under the law. Therefore, the television show KSM has no right to use the footage without the consent of the people in the video to use it for their personal use it is against the law.
D’Costa & Ojha, Zeitgeist of Individual’s Rights to Privacy: Peeping Through The Data Protection framework, Mondaq connecting knowledge & people 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.mondaq.com/india/Privacy/780740/Zeitgeist-Of-Individual39s-Right-To-Privacy-Peeping-Through-The-Data-Protection-Framework
M. T, Shanahan. J, & Signorielli. N., Social media cultivating perceptions of privacy: A 5-years analysis of privacy attitudes and self-disclosure behaviors among Facebook users. New Media & Society, SAGE journals, 2016. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444816660731
Broadcasting Act of 1989
Criminal Harassment Act of 1997
Cyber Law 1961
Privacy Act of 1993
Privacy Law 2016
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....