Strategic Pr Models

'THE LAW AS RELATED TO CONFIDENTIALITY ARISES OUT OF THE CREATION OF A RELATIONSHIP WHILST THAT AS RELATED TO PRIVACY ARISES FROM THE NATURE OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION'

The above statement specifically relates to the laws regarding privacy and confidentiality. Although there is no strict government act that states where privacy and confidentiality can be derived from, there are still a number of previous cases which have shaped the law, and the European Convention on Human Rights also pays a pivotal factor. There are clear differences between confidentiality and privacy, which I am going to investigate throughout this piece.

The law on privacy is shaped by the European Convention on Human Rights, mainly, Article 8. This states that everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence . However, this does not stand as an ultimate restriction, as there are exceptions. These include; for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of rights and freedoms of others, and for the protection of health or morals. This essentially means that although everyone does still withhold the right to a private and family life, there are still a lot of other factors which we, when working in PR, would have to take into account to protect the privacy of the client.

The Press Complaints Commission also sets out regulations regarding a specific client's private life. It says 'everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence, including digital communications.' . It also states that 'it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent'. This can be seen to specifically relate to a number of previous cases, where, for instance, in the Douglas v Hello! Ltd (2001), Michael Douglas and Katherine Zeta-Jones sued Hello! For publishing pictures of their wedding which they had initially agreed to sell to OK magazine.

Another pivotal case which has shaped the law regarding privacy is the Campbell v MGN (2004), where the supermodel was photographed leaving a Narcotics Anonymous group. This relates to the part of the above statement, 'the nature of specific information', in that the specific information of where Campbell was receiving the treatment, along with the nature of this treatment, was not necessarily in the public interest, so Campbell thus won damages, even though the amount was quite low. Sir Charles Gray, the judge in the case, said the judgement had, in effect, created a new law of privacy for the first time.

Moving onto confidentiality, the differences between this and privacy are clear as day. Breach of confidence is derived from the relationship between the client and writer, and the circumstances in which this information was relayed to the writer. Prime examples of when one might assume the right to confidentiality include, for instance, a patient giving