Might the tort of invasion of privacy be stretched to include this sort of intrusion, even without publication – in fact, even if the intrusive behaviour doesn’t turn up any truly private facts? Might the tort recognise that the harm here is the offensive prying into a person’s interests in seclusion? The Privacy Act does not apply to newsgathering journalists. The Privacy Act may provide protection: you can complain, for instance, if material about you has been gathered in a way that is unfair, unlawful or unreasonably intrusive, and you can show that you’ve suffered harm as a result.īut these avenues all have limitations, and won’t necessarily provide for an injunction or damages. But what if there’s no publication? What if someone reads your diary, eavesdrops on your intimate conversation, improperly accesses your health or bank records, films you with a hidden camera, or sneaks a peek at your video rental history? Depending on the circumstances, you might be able to avail yourself of one of a range of legal remedies such as harassment, breach of confidence, nuisance, trespass, or the offences of intimatĮ covert filming or illegal interception. The tort of invasion of privacy, at least in theory, could provide you with an injunction or damages for these revelations. A blogger publishes pictures of you naked. A newspaper reveals you had an abortion as a teenager. It is well established now that you can sue for invasion of privacy if someone offensively publishes sensitive private facts about you and there’s no redeeming public interest. How far does our privacy tort stretch? Does it – should it – include offensive intrusions into someone’s affairs? Budget leak: Nats’ behaviour “entirely appropriate”?.

When free speech creates disorder or hate.

NZME admits it misled listeners by buying into Trump’s ridiculous election fraud claims – but BSA somehow finds broadcasting standards not breached.

Upper nick coolpack