Media Vis a vis right to privacy

The right to privacy is nothing but have right to be let alone, in the absence of
some reasonable public interest in a person's activities, like those of
celebrities or participants in newsworthy events. Intervention of the right to
privacy may be the basis for a lawsuit for damages or loss incurred against
the person or entity or society violating the right. The right to privacy is never
mentioned in the Indian constitution , but the Supreme Court has given a large
number of the amendments as creating what is actually called right. One of
the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which prevents the police and
other government agencies from searching us or our property without
reasonable cause to believe that we have committed anything which is not .
Other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our
bodies and our private lives without interference from the government. The
due process clause of the 14th amendment generally only protects privacy of
family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.

A definite legal definition of ‘privacy’ is not available. Some legal experts tend
to define privacy as a human right enjoyed by every human being by virtue of
his or her presence. It depends on no instrument or charter. Privacy can be
also extended to other aspects, including bodily integrity, personal autonomy,
informational self-determination, protection from state surveillance, dignity,
confidentiality, compelled speech and freedom to dissent or move or think. In
short, the right to privacy has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Privacy enjoys a robust legal framework in foreign also . Article 12 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and Article 17 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, legally
protect persons against arbitrary interference with one’s privacy, family, home,
correspondence, honour and reputation. India signed and ratified the ICCPR
on April 10, 1979, without reservation. Article 7 and 8 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012, defines the respect for
private and family life, home and communications. Article 8 mandates
protection of personal data and its collection for a specified legitimate
purpose.

Here will have a illustration on this .

The trigger is the government’s Aadhaar scheme, which collects personal

details, information and biometrics to identify beneficiaries for government
welfare schemes. A bunch of petitions was filed in the Supreme Court in 2015
terming Aadhaar preparation is nothing but a breach of privacy. The
petitioners argued that Aadhaar enrolment was the means to a totalitarian
state and an open invitation for personal data leakage and high chance of
misuse .

The government countered that the right to privacy of an elite few is

submissive to the right of the masses to lead a respectful life in a developing
country. It stated that informational privacy does not exist before compelling
state interests and is not an absolute right. It caused that collection and use
of personal data of citizens for Aadhaar — now a law under the Aadhaar
(Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act of 2016 — which can benefits millions of poor. The government claims
Aadhaar is a solution for corruption in public distribution, money-laundering
and terror funding. Continuos trouble made by contradictions in the past
judicial pronouncements on whether or not privacy is a fundamental right, a
five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided to refer the
question to a nine-judge Bench. This nine-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice
of India J.S. Khehar, for the first time, is engaged in an intense debate with
legal scholars and prominent lawyers on whether or not privacy of any
individual should be a fundamental right in the Constitution. At the same time,
the judges and the legal community are vexed by the amorphous nature of
privacy.

The government argues that right to privacy is not expressly included in the
Constitution as the founding fathers rejected or jettisoned the idea of inclusion
of privacy as a fundamental right. It is to be kept in mind that petitioners insist
that the recognition of privacy as a fundamental freedom is an essential
deterrent against intrusion into personal arena and data by state and private
players in a technologically dynamic society.

How it can be a matter

The apprehension expressed by the Supreme Court about the collection and
use of data is the risk of personal information falling into the hands of private
players and service providers. The apprehension is best expressed in the
words of honorable justice on the nine-judge Bench. He clarified that he does
not want the state to pass fast his personal information to some thousands of
service providers who would send him through apps media messages
offering cosmetics and air conditioners. That is our area of concern of
Supreme court in every sense . Personal details are turning into vital
commercial information for private service providers.Both the government and
service providers collect personal data. This adds to the danger of data
seepages .
What is to be done in that case -

The Supreme Court again and again asked the government whether it plans
to set up a robust data protection mechanism or not . The court pointed to the
fact that a large chunk of personal information is already in the public domain
and gave an example of how a person accesses his Apple iPad by using his
fingerprints. The court pointed out that the “state is obliged to put a robust
personal data protection mechanism in place in this digital age.”

May lawyers believe that new technologies alter the balance between privacy
and disclosure, and that privacy rights should limit government surveillance to
protect democratic processes. It is defined , privacy as the claim of
individuals, groups to determine for themselves when, how, where and to
what limit information about them is communicated to others. They also
describe that four states of privacy: solitude, intimacy, anonymity, reserve.
These states must balance participation against norms . Each individual has
been engaged in a personal adjustment process in which he tries to balance
the desire for privacy with the desire for openness and communication of
himself to others, in context of the environmental conditions and social norms
set by the society or environment in which he belongs. Under liberal
democratic policy, privacy makes a separate place from political life, and
allows personal autonomy, while determining democratic freedoms of association
and expression. Another group feels that networked computer databases pose a
tremendous threats into privacy. He develops data protection as an aspect of
privacy, which involves the collection, use, and dissemination of personal
information. This concept forms the foundation for fair information practices
used by governments globally. This forwards an idea of privacy as information
control, individuals want to be left alone and to exercise some control over
how information about them is used .

Another group has described the modern right to privacy as Fair Information
Practices i.e the rights and responsibilities associated with the collection and
use of personal information. They emphasize that the allocation of rights are
to the data subject and the responsibilities are assigned to the data collectors
because of the transfer of the data and the asymmetry of information
concerning data practice.

Another group focuses on the economic aspects of personal information

control. Some people criticize privacy for concealing information, which
reduces market efficiency. For them, employment is selling oneself in the
labour market, which he believes is like selling a product. Any defect in the
product that is not reported is fraud. Privacy breaches online can be regulated
through code and law. It can be claimed that the protection of privacy would
be stronger if people conceived of the right as a property right and that
individuals should be able to control information about themselves. Economic
approaches to privacy make communal conceptions of privacy difficult to
maintain.

A collective value and a human right

There have been attempts to reframe privacy as a fundamental human right,

whose social value is an essential component in the functioning of democratic
societies. A famous scholar suggests a different approach to privacy. This
requires a shared moral culture for establishing social order.He believes that
privacy is merely one good among many others and that technological effects
depend on community accountability and oversight. He claims that privacy
laws only increase government surveillance.

Sometimes , individual concepts of privacy have failed philosophically and in

policy. It supports a social value of privacy with three dimensions: shared
perceptions, public values, and collective components. Shared ideas about
privacy allows freedom of conscience and diversity in thought. Public values
guarantee democratic participation, including freedoms of speech and
association, and limits government power. Collective elements describe
privacy as collective good that cannot be divided. It’s main goal is to
strengthen privacy claims in policy making .if we collectively did recognize or
public-good value of privacy, as well as the common and public value of
privacy, those advocating privacy protections would have a stronger basis
upon which to argue for its protection.

It is being argued that the human right to privacy is necessary for meaningful
democratic participation, and ensures human dignity and autonomy. Privacy
depends on norms for how information is distributed, and if this is appropriate.
Violations of privacy depend on context. The human right to privacy has
precedent in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Shade believes
that privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not
through the marketplace.

Even before India became Independent, it had already become party to the
United Nations Declaration on Human Rights 1948 . Press had played a
very important and productive role in the independence movement, through its
strong support for the popular movement of Satyagraha and abdication of
foreign goods and other similar forms of freedom struggle. Such was the
impact of the print media that it frightened the British, as it gave a picture of a
strong India, though the reality was a disintegrated India ruled by princely
kings and people in deep poverty.

The framers of our Constitution were knowing that the immense power vested
in the print media, therefore they imbibed the Freedom of Speech and
Expression in Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution from Article 19 of the
UDHR, and also reflected similarly in Article 19 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR). UDHR 1948 in Article 12 and
ICCPR 1966 in Article 17 give protection to the concept of privacy. Though
freedom of speech and expression given in Article 19 of the UDHR 1948 and
ICCPR 1966 was enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. We
do not find such constitutional recognition given to privacy in India. Here,
privacy is not given any separate constitutional status.
Right to life, liberty and security of person is mentioned in Article 3 of the
UDHR 1948. This is recognized in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Privacy was not included in this Article. In Nihal Chand v.Bhagwan Dei during
the colonial period, as early as in 1935, the High Court mentioned the
independent existence of privacy from the customs and traditions of India. But
privacy got ultimate place in free India for the first time in Kharak Singh case.
In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court asked to strike down
domiciliary visits by the police as it violates Article 21. But it was nothing but
the minority view given in this case by Justice Subha Rao, that privacy got
recognised first time as a right included in Article 21 of the Constitution. In this
case the apex court recognized privacy as part of right to life and personal
liberty. Privacy has been recognized as a separate right in UDHR 1948. This
has failed to realize in the same spirit as a fundamental right in the Indian
Constitution, like the right to speech and expression and right to life. Article 3
of the UDHR 1948, protects life and personal liberty, not privacy. In India
privacy is described as part of right to life and personal liberty in Article 21 of
the Constitution as there is no separate provision for privacy in the
Constitution. Privacy has been first time declared by Supreme Court in
Sharada v. Dharampal as the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance
in one’s private life or affairs. It is different and distinct from the life and liberty
in Article 21 of the Constitution. India being signatory and party to the
UDHR1948 is liable to protect Privacy as a fundamental right in the
Constitution and also to give a higher status to it in reference to Press.
Since the arrival of early social networking sites in the early 2000s, online social networking
platforms have increased exponentially, with the biggest names in social media in the mid-2010s
being Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat. The massive influx of personal information
that has become available easily in online and stored in the cloud has put user privacy at stake and
the forefront of all discussion of the databases ability to safely store such personal information.
The extent to which users and social media platform administrators can access user profiles has
become a new topic of ethical consideration and the legality, awareness and boundaries of
subsequent privacy violations are critical concerns in the advance of the technological age.
Social network is nothing but a social structure made up of a set of social actors , sets of dyadic
ties, and other social interactions between actors. Privacy concerns with social networking
services is a subset of data privacy, involving the right of mandating personal privacy concerning
storing, re-purposing, provision to third parties, and displaying of information pertaining to
oneself via the Internet. Social network security and privacy issues result from the astronomical
amounts of information these sites process each day. Features that invite users to participate in—
messages, invitations, photos, open platform applications and other applications are usually the
venues for others to gain access to a user's private information. In addition, the technologies
needed to deal with user's information may intervene their privacy.
More specifically, In the case of Facebook. a Ph.D. candidate at England , made small headlines
last year when it has been exposed by him that a potentially detrimental hole in the framework of
Facebook's third-party application programming interface (API). It made it easier for people to
lose their privacy. This candidate & her co-researchers found that third-party platform applications
on Facebook have been providing with far more user information than it is needed. This potential
privacy breach is actually built into the systematic framework of Facebook. Unfortunately, the
flaws render the system to be almost indefensible. The question for social networks is resolving
the difference between mistakes in implementation and what the required design of the application
platform is intended to allow.

A very famous Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of Virginia also shares
his view on privacy . He feels , moreover, there is also the question of who should be held
responsible for the lack of user privacy? According to him, the answer to the question is not to be
found, because a better regulated API would be required for Facebook to discontinue a lot of
applications, especially when a lot of companies are trying to make money off through this
applications He also agrees with her conclusion that because of there are marketing businesses
built on top of the idea that third parties can get access to data and user information on Facebook
but which should not be .

The creation of the Web 2.0 has caused social profiling and has been growing concern for internet
privacy. Web 2.0 is the system that keeps and facilitates participatory information sharing and
collaboration on the Internet, in social networking media websites like Facebook and MySpace.
These social networking sites have seen a boom in their popularity starting from the late 2000s.
Through these websites many people are giving their personal where abouts on the internet.
These social networks keep track of all interactions used on their sites and save them for later
use.Issues include cyberstalking, location disclosure, social profiling, 3rd party personal
information disclosure, and government use of social network websites in investigations without
the safeguard of a search warrant.

Social networking has dramatically changed the way people interact with their friends, associates
and family members. Although social networks, like Twitter, Facebook, Google+, YouTube,
Snapchat and FourSquare, play a vital role in our day to day lives, I have also come to discover
that they could also pose serious privacy risks. When using these social media sites, it’s quite
important to know and understand the privacy risks involved.

Privacy Risks on Social Media

Nowadays, hackers prowl the social media networks expecting for victims. They tend to use the
shortened URLs like those which are created with bits & pieces . They use these shortened URLs
to put innocent into their trap and make them victim so that innocent makes their visit to
harmful sites or to inject viruses into their computers or mobile phones. Hackers also use spyware
which they can easily install in any one’s mobile phone, laptop, iPad or/and computer remotely via
downloads, emails, shortened URLs or instant messages. The spyware gives the hacker
information about the passwords that anyone can use on your social media networks and other
accounts which they access online. The simplest way to avoid being a victim, is to never click on
links unless anyone sure of the actual source.

Most of the social media sites have information that’s required, like someone’s birthday and email
address. Identity thieves tend to gather their victims’ personal information from the information
available on the social media sites. Many identity thieves tend to hack their victims email accounts
by simply using the personal information available on social media profile. For instance, one of
the more common techniques used by identity thieves, is clicking on the forgot password, and then
trying to recover the password via email. Once they access your email account, they basically
have access to all of your personal information.

Social media sites utilize mobile apps and the location based services to allow users to check in at
their current locations. This normally reveals the user’s current location to all of the people they
are connected with in their particular social media networks. The information posted can be easily
available by malicious people to track anyone’s whereabouts. Moreover, telling the online
community where anyone is going to, can end up inviting burglars and thieves to your home or
business. For instance, by posting someone’s current location and saying that he is on a long
vacation in Australia, he will be letting the potential burglars or/and thieves know exactly where
he is, and how long he will be gone. To mitigate such risks,someone should avoid posting your
travel plans, and using the location based services.

Tips For Protecting Your Privacy On Social Media

Create strong passwords; the stronger passwords are, the harder it will be to guess. Anyone can
include special characters such as symbols, numbers, and capital letters in his password. Also,
should not use some common passwords, like your child’s name, wife’s name or birthday.

Review social media profiles and pay close attention to the way each profile lets anyone protect
sensitive personal details. Some social media sites like Facebook gives the opportunity of
restricting access to certain friends, family members and colleagues. Also take advantage of the
enhanced privacy options which are offered by social media sites like blocking the messages from
strangers.

Atlast media should be responsible enough to protect the people’s privacy .