INVASION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS BY VISUAL MEDIA: NEED FOR A REGULATION

ABSTRACT:

The widespread use of visual media in the digital world has created new challenges for personal privacy rights. This paper looks at the different ways visual media can invade privacy, and the need for regulations to protect individual rights. By reviewing relevant research, case studies, and legal examples, the paper explains the complexities around privacy invasion by visual media and offers practical solutions for effective regulation.

The digital age has brought about a remarkable proliferation of visual media, which poses significant challenges to individual privacy rights. This research paper delves into the multifaceted ways in which visual media encroaches on privacy and advocates for regulatory measures to protect personal rights. Through a comprehensive examination of relevant literature, informative case studies, and related legal precedents, this paper illustrates the complexities surrounding privacy invasion by visual media and proposes viable solutions for effective guidance. By analyzing the intricate interplay between technology, societal norms, and legal frameworks, this research underscores the critical need for proactive measures to safeguard privacy in an increasingly visual-centric landscape.

In the recent years, the rise of digital technology has changed the way we consume and share visual media. From ubiquitous smartphone cameras to social media platforms, the ease of capturing and spreading images has changed the social landscape. However, this newfound accessibility has also given rise to numerous challenges concerning personal privacy. The prevalence of visual media raises significant concerns regarding consent, surveillance, and the commodification of personal data. This paper seeks to explore the multifaceted dimensions of privacy invasion by visual media and advocate for regulatory interventions to mitigate its adverse impacts. By examining relevant literature, analyzing prominent case studies, and evaluating existing legal frameworks, this research aims to illustrate the complexities of the issue and propose meaningful solutions for effective regulation.

Keywords: Invasion of Privacy, Visual Media, Regulation, Personal Rights, Digital Age

INTRODUCTION

Global information consumption and dissemination have undergone a radical change since the introduction of visual media technology. Nonetheless, worries about the violation of people’s right to privacy have also been raised by this quick evolution. Unprecedented privacy breaches have resulted from the widespread use of cameras, cellphones, and social media platforms, which have made it possible to collect, share, and use personal data without authorization. Also media trials and media opinions that are inflicted on the society invade privacy of individuals in many ways[1].

Moreover, regulatory interventions must be accompanied by efforts to promote digital literacy and empowering individuals with the knowledge and tools to protect their privacy online. Educational initiatives aimed at raising awareness about the risks of oversharing and the importance of privacy settings on social media platforms can help individuals make informed choices about their online behavior.

This study looks into the several ways that visual media violate people’s privacy and emphasizes the necessity of legal frameworks to address these issues.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

This article employs a multidimensional research methodology that integrates numerous approaches to thoroughly analyze the complex interaction between privacy rights and visual media. To begin with, the study uses legal analysis to comprehend the legal frameworks protecting privacy in the setting of visual media by using recognized legal principles, statutes, and case laws. The research clarifies the legal environment surrounding privacy invasion by visual media by looking at pertinent legal doctrines such the right to privacy, freedom of expression, and data protection regulations.

In order to gain a greater understanding of legal viewpoints and court interpretations on privacy rights infringements assisted by visual media, the research also performs an extensive review of relevant case laws and precedents. The paper reveals the complexity and subtleties of privacy law as applied to visual media through an analysis of historical cases and present legal issues. This analysis offers important insights into the legal precedents and judicial reasoning that have shaped existing regulatory regimes.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Reviewing the body of research on visual media invasion of privacy reveals a diverse range of academic viewpoints and historical eras of scholarly investigation. The fundamental writings of Warren & Brandeis[2] (1890) and Westin (1967) contributed significantly to the idea of privacy rights and laid the groundwork for current discussions on the topic. These early academics emphasized the inherent worth of privacy in maintaining individual dignity and autonomy, as well as the essential value of personal autonomy and confidentiality.

The idea of privacy being a basic human right necessary for preserving individual autonomy and integrity was examined in Westin’s groundbreaking work, “Privacy and Freedom” (1967). In proposing the concept of “privacy as the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others,” he emphasized the importance of control over one’s personal data in defining personal rights. A theoretical framework for comprehending the intricacies of privacy in the digital age was provided by Westin’s observations, which paved the way for later research on privacy invasion by visual media.

In a similar vein, the idea of privacy as a legal right based on the defense of individual liberty and dignity was established in Warren & Brandeis’ seminal work, “The Right to Privacy” (1890). They argued for the establishment of a right to privacy that protects people from unjustified intrusion into their private affairs, drawing on common law grounds and philosophical reasons. The foundation for contemporary privacy jurisprudence was established by Warren & Brandeis, who also had an impact on later legal studies on private rights by highlighting the necessity for legal safeguards against intrusive types of surveillance and publicizing.

Expanding on these seminal studies, modern researchers like Solove (2008) and Nissenbaum (2010) have explored the intricacies of privacy in the digital era, addressing the obstacles presented by nascent technology and novel modes of social engagement. A thorough analysis of the many facets of privacy was given in Solove’s groundbreaking book “Understanding Privacy”[3] (2008), which emphasized the importance of a contextual approach that considers the social, cultural, and technological elements influencing privacy expectations. Debates on privacy invasion by visual media have benefited greatly from Solove’s conceptual framework, which makes distinctions between various privacy harms, including information gathering, processing, and distribution.

HOW MEDIA INVADES PRIVACY

The phrase “invasion of privacy” describes a wide range of visual media-related behaviors, including sharing of personal photos, doxxing, unauthorized surveillance, and the proliferation of new technologies that compromise people’s privacy and identification. In order to protect people’s right to privacy in an increasingly digital world, a multifaceted approach involving technology safeguards, legislative changes, and public awareness campaigns is required to address these privacy violations.

A person’s privacy may be violated by visual media in a number of ways, including unauthorized data collection and surveillance and the unauthorized distribution of private photographs. Particularly social networking sites have become havens for privacy violations as a result of people uploading private images and videos without authorization. The phenomenon of “doxxing,” in which people post their personal information online, exacerbates privacy concerns even further. Furthermore, there are significant hazards to privacy and uniqueness associated with modern technologies like biometric tracking and facial recognition, which raise complex ethical and legal issues.

Unauthorized Data Collection and Surveillance
Unauthorized use of visual media, such as CCTV cameras, drones, and smartphone cameras, is growing in the surveillance industry. Both public and private locations, such as offices, residences, and recreational areas, may be the subject of surveillance. Public venues include streets, retail centers, and transit hubs.  Concerns concerning the erosion of private rights and the possibility of abuse by nefarious actors, companies, and government agencies arise from the collecting of visual data without the knowledge or consent of individuals.

Sharing Sensual Pictures Without Permission
Social media sites have made it easier for people to share private images and videos widely, frequently without the necessary privacy protections in place. “Revenge porn,” or intimate or compromising photos posted without permission, may have disastrous effects on victims, including harassment, extortion, and damage to their reputation. The absence of efficient procedures for eliminating or stopping the spread of such content aggravates privacy issues and erodes people’s authority over their personal data.

Doxxing[4] and Public Disclosure of Personal Data Online

The term “doxxing” describes the criminal act of posting someone else’s personal information online without that person’s permission, including home addresses, phone numbers, and bank account information. Doxxers frequently target people for intimidation, harassment, or retaliation; they take use of the anonymity and accessibility of internet platforms to cause harm.

In addition to violating people’s right to privacy, the unauthorised disclosure of sensitive personal information puts them at danger for safety and security, especially in situations when they are the object of harassment or stalking.

Risks Presented by New Technologies

Machine learning algorithms-powered facial recognition technology makes it possible to automatically identify and monitor people based just on their facial features.
The ability to uniquely identify people through biometric surveillance technology, such as iris scanning and fingerprint recognition, raises worries about mass surveillance and the erosion of anonymity.

Because people can be followed and recognized without their knowledge or consent, these developing technologies offer serious risks to people’s right to privacy and autonomy. This could result in abuses by governments, law enforcement, and private companies.

Ethical and Legal Dilemmas

The proliferation of visual media and the accompanying privacy violations raise profound ethical and legal dilemmas regarding the balance between individual rights and societal interests.

Questions arise regarding the permissible scope of surveillance and data collection, the rights of individuals to control the dissemination of their personal information, and the responsibilities of technology companies and governments to protect privacy rights.

Regulatory frameworks must grapple with these complex issues, ensuring that individuals’ privacy rights are safeguarded without unduly stifling innovation or infringing upon legitimate public interests, such as public safety and national security.

APPLICATION OF PRIVACY LAWS AND PRESS COUNCIL

Privacy law applies like it were to people as in humans. Organizations that wish to secure their information must do so through contract law or mental property rights. But this run the appear has certain exceptions to it. This run in case of passing as well applies to the family members of the terminated. This was seen in the case of National Records and Records v Favish[5]. The court said that survivors do have the security right in open get to to the photos because that would surpass the family’s security interest.

In the case of wrongdoers as well, the idea is that the released prisoner has the right to begin living a better life, and the state ought to support him in doing so. On occasion, innocent family members or the person or people falsely accused have been cleared of all charges, only to later find themselves in hot water because of unusual media attention. This violates the right to privacy since it suggests guilt by association.

The idea that there should never be a lack of assurance in public is widely accepted. This isn’t, however, entirely accurate. Not what occurs in public, but what is of public interest, can be highlighted by the media. A picture of a young woman whose clothing blew up from the inside was published in an Alabama daily newspaper in 1964. The court declared that the daily newspaper had no authority to make that young woman feel ashamed because this was an open incident. A security breach occurred here. In public there has to be sensible want of security; a private run of the individual would not be self-evident to the open whether that individual is in an open or private place. In an inspected case the matter was as well not of open concern. To choose what is of open concern we require to draw the line between when media ceases to provide information to the individual and gets to be an extraordinary and dismal getting into private lives for its own sake. An open laborer going to a lady companion, getting inebriated with her should not be a news as it does not fulfill the open reason as held by board in Ashok Vajpayi v Dainink Jagran.

There may be times when revealing identity gets to be compulsory on the parcel of media to save individuals from mental harm and goading. Also, the government has allocate of mystery information which an individual as a citizen of the country is bound to share. If the government manhandle the information for a few person gain, or in light of the work out of a few insignificant plot at that point the government is committed for the invasion of assurance and not reasonable the collector of the information. In all of these circumstances, the Press Committee plays a crucial role in providing appropriate guidelines to the media. If press ethics are ignored, this leads to needless lawsuits under the tort law, where insulting and assaulting confidence are two distinct but equal notions. However, as evidence of their contempt for the directives issued by the press chamber, media distributors publish some derogatory articles in an attempt to boost readership.

By pointing out that the press is a private organisation and that the state cannot impede the exercise of fundamental rights, the press behaves maturely when it mishandles an individual’s assurance under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Thus, the Press Committee is one organisation that restrains the media’s tendency towards pretence. It provides rules for the same and serves as the ombudsman.

According to Sr. Cyllia, Superior Franciscans of the St. Mary of the Angeles “Sneha Sadan,” and Father Flacio Fonseca v. The Indian Express, the Press Committee’s norms went into effect at that point. A picture of two nuns who had passed away was displayed during this function. There was a widespread spread by the three main daily newspapers about the nuns’ non-virility and the STDs they carried. The story was reported in the daily newspapers with no indication of the information’s source. Furthermore, it was not revealed what kind of establishment the nuns were affiliated with. After reviewing this case, the Press Board concluded that the newspaper article posed a risk to both the organisation and the image of the pious woman. The chamber determined that the two nuns and their families had their personal security violated. The key guidelines that were subsequently established in this instance are as follows: the media must demonstrate that the information it has presented is accurate and was presented with great confidence for both public benefit and open advantage.

This case gives a definitive rule that no deprecatory clarification against the dead person can be made as it harms the security principle.

Again in the case of  K.C.John Chief, Set up of News scope v Deepika Press Board gave the rules that ‘Privacy should be respected and names, photographs and other particulars driving to the identifying features of the casualties or degenerate focuses of intrigued of the offense should not be published to those who are unconcerned with law, authorization or with the administrative region in the matter.’

Since real mindfulness and dynamic law change quickly, India’s Right to Security has actually required genuine status over the past century. It is imperative for the law to adapt to the changing requirements of society. There are other nations in the world besides India where this also occurs.

JUDGEMENTS:

Roe v. Swim (1973):

The Due Prepare Clause of the Fourteenth Revision to the Joined together States Structure gifts a lady the legitimate right to an fetus removal, as built up by the memorable choice of Roe v. Swim in the court’s history. In spite of the fact that irrelevant to visual media, Roe v. Swim was pivotal in setting up the more common right to protection, which has since been utilized in a assortment of circumstances, counting computerized age security laws. The case set up a point of reference for protection rights statute by maintaining the center thought that individuals have a naturally ensured right to make private choices without unjustified government interference.

United States v. Katz[6]

The “sensible desire of security” test beneath the Fourth Revision of the Joined together States Structure was built up by the Incomparable Court of the Joined together States in the celebrated Katz v. Joined together States case. The Court decided that the defendant’s Fourth Revision rights were damaged in this occurrence by the government’s warrantless listening in of a open phone booth. The administering built up the premise for modern protection rights law by extending the security of security past physical zones and consolidating sensible desires of protection in communications.

United States v. Carpenter[7]

A eminent case listened by the U.S. Preeminent Court that managed with the Fourth Amendment’s appropriateness to area information from cell phones was Carpenter v. Joined together States. In this choice, the Court decided that getting chronicled versatile phone area information from a cellular supplier by the government qualified as a “look” beneath the Fourth Alteration and required a warrant supported by sensible doubt. The administering recognized the fragile nature of area information and reaffirmed the require for solid protection measures in the advanced time, particularly with respect to creating innovations and government agencies’ securing of individual data.

California v. Riley[8]

In the celebrated Riley v. California choice, the US Preeminent Court considered people’s right to security with respect to advanced devices—specifically, cell phones—during police looks that take after an capture. The Court perceived the particular security issues spoken to by modern advanced innovation and chosen that police must regularly look for a warrant some time recently reviewing a cell phone seized compatible to an capture. The administering accentuated the need of advanced legitimate systems to handle the issues brought almost by mechanical progressions and repeated the importance of protecting people’s right to security in the advanced age.

SUGGESTIONS

Regulations must be changed instantly to illuminate the issues brought on by visual media’s infringement of protection. To begin with and preeminent, laws overseeing the gathering, chronicling, and sharing of individual information by open and private associations should to be passed. This law ought to incorporate methods for grievance change and strict fines for infractions. The need to update regulations is urgent due to growing concerns about privacy violations through visual media. It is crucial to create laws that govern how personal data is collected, stored, and shared by both public and private organizations. These laws should clearly outline how organizations can gather and handle personal information, ensuring transparency and accountability. There should also be mechanisms for individuals to seek recourse if their privacy rights are violated. Additionally, severe penalties should be imposed on entities that do not comply with these regulations. Immediate regulatory changes are necessary to protect individuals’ privacy amidst the evolving challenges posed by visual media.

In expansion, the usage of mechanical measures like encryption and anonymization is suggested to diminish the probability of information breaches and unapproved get to. Open mindfulness campaigns and instructive programs ought to moreover be propelled in arrange to edify individuals almost their rights and commitments with connection to securing their privacy.

CONCLUSIONS

In outline, both society standards and person independence are seriously undermined by the attack of protection caused by visual media. The unbridled advancement of visual media innovations postures a risk to crucial flexibilities and rights in the nonattendance of adequate control. Be that as it may, in the advanced time, it is conceivable to discover a adjust between advancement and protection assurance by proactive endeavors counting open backing, innovation progressions, and legitimate changes. Through the prioritization of moral issues and the recognition of straightforwardness and responsibility, society may viably oversee the complexities of visual media whereas at the same time ensuring individuals’ inborn security and dignity.

In arrange to ensure crucial rights in a society where individuals are getting to be more organized, this inquire about ponder accentuates the critical require for legitimate systems to handle the developing danger of security intrusion by visual media.


[1] The Law Brigade Publishers, https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Nishita.pdf ( last visited Mar 19, 2024)

[2] Massachusetts Institute of Technology, https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html (last visited on Mar 16, 2024)

[3] The George Washington University, https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2075&context=faculty_publications ( last visited on Mar 19, 2024)

[4] Tech Target, https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/6-common-social-media-privacy-issues (last visited Mar 19, 2024)

[5] National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish et al., 541 U.S. 157 (2004)

[6] 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

[7] 819 F. 3d 880 (2016)

[8] 573 U.S. 373 (2014)