Defined as ‘the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view’, the concept of privacy can be applicable for individuals to stop information about themselves from becoming known to people other than those chosen to receive said information.
Well worth considering in the case of John Prescott. Whilst I’m very much in favour of fewer privileges for the croquet-fan from Hull, the coverage with regard to female voters is patronising to say the least. Christine McCafferty, MP for Calder Valley, opines that
‘many women voters are very unhappy that John is still in post. It does seem as if he’s benefited not to say been rewarded when he breached, in some people’s’ eyes, a moral code.’
The very notion of morality is a subjective thing. Given the fact Prescott’s conduct during the affair didn’t affect his completion of Ministerial responsibilities, the need for such villification is minimal when comparing the almost-congratulation that David Beckham, a public figure with increased responsibility as a role model, received for playing away from home. Times have moved on since the Profumo affair.
Onto more interesting matters – the European Court has finally thrown out a deal requiring EU airlines to hand over the personal details of all passengers on flights between Europe and the US. The deal required the provision of thirty-four pieces of information per passenger, inclusive of credit card details,as a security measure after the terrorist attacks in September 2001. The data would’ve been made available to the US within 15 minutes of take-off.
It’s interesting how the US can be seen to ‘criminalise’ all foreigners upon arrival what with their insistence on ‘iris-records’ and ‘fingerprints’. Exactly how far is too far when considering an individual’s right to privacy versus that of a nation?
|Post to del.icio.us|
Filed in: Current affairs