Invasion Of Privacy Examples

SOSC 3365 Exam

Jasmin Gill

212 584 660

Cody Willet

AP/SOSC 3365

1. You are on the street eating a hotdog. Without your permission someone takes an embarrassing picture of you with the hotdog in your mouth and your face smeared with mustard and then posts it on Facebook. You demand the picture be removed from Facebook, arguing that this is an invasion of your privacy. On what basis can you make the claim that you are entitled to privacy this situation?

Privacy is a complex concept with no universal definition as its meaning changes with society. Invasion of privacy occurs when there is an intrusion upon the reasonable expectation to be left alone. There has been a growing debate about the legitimacy of privacy in public

spaces and unauthorized posting of pictures online. With a tech-savvy modern society, nearly every phone has a camera attached into it, and nearly every person has some form of a social networking account. Subsequently more and more people are taking pictures in public places and posting them online. This establishes that as society evolves, laws need to also evolve to fit the needs of society. There are two parts to this question that need to be addressed: first is whether or not taking pictures of people in public is a violation of privacy, second is what entitlement do you have to privacy after the picture as been posted online. I will argue that individuals can take a picture of another person in public and post it online, but there are some limitations. The expectation of privacy, the right to be left alone (Lecture 7) and the manner in which an individual an individual is portrayed influence decisions when determining whether or not there was a violation of privacy.
Generally there is no expectation of privacy in anything we do in the public. There are some limitations, however those will be discussed further in the essay. What happens in public is all in plain view for everyone to see. Therefore, anyone can take a picture of and post it online. If one is in a public place and someone snaps a picture of while falling down drunk, getting arrested, scowling at a crying baby, or not wearing pants, or messily eating a hog dog, they do not warrant a privacy claim. This means as long as one is in a public location they can legally take almost any picture.The dog poop girl is an example of the lack of privacy in public places. The girl in South Korea in 2005 had a small dog that pooped on the subway (a public place). Someone told her to pick it up, took pictures of her and posted them online. She had to quit school, moved and is now known as the “dog poop girl” (Lecture 9). Her representation online will be discussed further in the essay, however she would have no claim to her privacy being violated in a public place. She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the subway.

This can be related to privacy in Ancient Greece where public life was valued (Lecture 2). In establishing the similarity of historical notions of privacy it is also important to establish the shifts. The Renaissance was the beginning of a secular valuation of privacy and the modern ideal of individual (Lecture 2). Although the Renaissance is more “contemporary”, modern society seems to coincide with the norms of Ancient Greece. Society has shifted from public life to private life back to public.Futhermore, in discussing limittions to the photographing in public, it is important to note the expectation of privacy in discussions of violations of taking pictures in public places. In determining violations we need to address if it is an area where the average person would expect privacy. If they took the photo where they have an expectation of privacy, like using the toilet or in a public change room, that is considered a violation of privacy. If someone photographed me using a telephoto lens, parabolic microphone, or hidden camera to get a shot of me on private property when standing on public property there is an issue because I had an expectation of privacy.To conclude the discussion of photography in the public, one is not entitled to privacy on the grounds that the hot dog stand does not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. One can photograph people in public places without consent. There are exceptions, though. If subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy, they should not be photographed. For example, don't photograph someone in a restroom or change room.

The second part of the question is to address the right to be left alone and the representation of an individual when posting their picture online.

Going back to the example of the dog poop girl, she would be justified in claiming an invasion of privacy as she was negatively characterized. The scope of law needs to expand to protect the reputation of an individual. Invasion of privacy occurs if one is portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. As in the hot dog example the taking of the photograph was not a violation of privacy, however posting it online to ridicule the individual is. Privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded in a situation in which, there was a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home, public restroom. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited. However, posting the messy hot dog picture is defamatory -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. Furthermore, the fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray and must cause people in the community to think less of a person to warrant a claim. Campell v. MGN Limitted, 2004 UK is another example of how images posted online can defame. Naomi Campbell used drugs and threw the phone at her assistant. Pictures were made public to portray a bad image about her. Naomi Campbell would warrant a privacy claim on these grounds, as would I in the situation of the hotdog stand. Another reason to stop the use of the photograph is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if the image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. An example would be if the messy hot dog image was used to advertise the hot dog stand. If the photo is used in a commercial website the unauthorized use of your image would violate the right of

publicity.
Secondly, one has a right to their image and the right to control their image (Lecture 7). Social media has made it quite dificult to control what is posted about individuals. As stated by E.L. Godkin in the Right Of the Citizen: To His Own Reputation, 1890 curiosity is the enemy of privacy (Lecture 7). Society is always concerned with what other people are doing and that what makes the defaming caused by misrepresenting images so successful. None the less, when one does become aware of a misrepresenting picture, they do have the abillity to report it to get it removed. However Facebook and other social media websites do not always repond proactively to reports that are made. Unless the photo involves a gross violation of the site administrators may not see an urgent need to take it down. Furthermore, images travel from one social networking site to another at a rapid pace. While the image of the messy hotdog may be removed from Facebook, it may already be posted on Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and other websites. From this discussion it can be concluded that posting the picture online does warrant the claim that privacy has been violated.
Whena negative image is posted there is also the question of how to hold the person who uploaded it accountable. As discussed in lecture, anything one posts can be used against them in the court of law (Lecture 11). An example would be when an individual posts about committing a crime (before or after the fact). As the norms of society change there is now three realms: public, private and online. Increasingly when there are events occur there is reference made to the social networking sites of an individual. At times the facts are true, other times they are used by the media to portray a negative image of the individual. The data double does not extend to social media. The idea that the virtual self is more authentic of the virtual self is not applicable to social media and the hotdog case. The posting of a picture where one is messily is eating a In the case of the hot dog picture an individual could make a report on Facebook, as well as a lawsuit. There are four categories under which a lawsuit could be filed: unreasonable intrusion of solitude in which someone is surreptitiously photographed in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, appropriation of someone's name or likeness (i.e. celebrities),public disclosure of private facts and false light/defamation.

Furthermore, invasion of privacy online can occur in forms other than pictures. A contemporary example is the Gamer Gate and Quinnspiracy issue. Game developer Zoe Quinn’s ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni published an online expose detailing their relationship called the Zoe Post. In the expose Gjoni claimed Quinn cheated on him with several men in the gaming industry, including journalist Nathan Grayson. Gamer Gate refers to the online backlash against the journalistic integrity of Zoe Quinn, a video game developer. Quinnspiracy, was an online controversy based on Zoe Quinn’s alleged affairs with a number of men working in the video game industry. It is not just images that can defame.
To conclude, one could not make a claim to privacy if someone took a picture in a public place.This is because for the most part, the reasonable expectation to privacy does not exist in the public realm. There are some limitations, however in the scenario of the hotdog picture, the hotdog stand does not constitute as a place where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy. Had the picture had been taken in a public restroom or change room in a place where privacy would be expected one would have a claim. In modern society, carrying a cellphone with a camera that is linked to some sort of social networking account has become the norm.By posting an unauthorized picture online, one does warrant a privacy claim on the grounds that the picture was defamatory. By posting the picture of one messily eating a hotdog falsely portrays and misrepresents the individual. As individuals have the right to control their image, they have the right to have the picture removed. Celebrities frequently file lawsuits against tabloid magazines for misrepresenting them and the same can be applied to this scenario. If one is not satisfied with the Facebook’s handling of the issue, they can file lawsuits. All in all, the public realm is not a place where one can expect privacy and social media websites for the most part support this.