Nicely put. Privacy is not consistent. A footballer may have a broken leg and a drug problem. So some of the player's problems are private and some aren't. Why the difference? It's not on a question of principle. It's a question of visibility. So we have to conclude that only those medical problems which are invisible qualify for privacy. This seems pretty stupid to me. As far as I'm concerned I don't care who knows what about my health. Covering up aspects of my health to obtain some advantage or escape some penalty sounds like cheating to me.

My health is a private matter between my doctor, my family and myself. The only exception to this is if my health involves a criminal matter, in which case the police have a right to know or if I have a communicable or reportable disease or illness. In that case health authorities have a right to know. The only other exception I can think of would be if a person's health affected their ability to perform a public office.
Except with the above exceptions, the newspapers do not have a right to know. The public do not, unless I choose to make it available to them, or if I am convicted of an offence.
Whether there is a legal right to privacy I will leave to people learned in the law. I do, however, believe that I have a moral or ethical right to privacy, regarding my sexual preferences, my financial affairs and my health. It is no-one's business but my own, and the only people who would want to know I would perceive to be busybodies, meddlers, vicarious thrill-seekers or mischiel-makers.

Mirko, for someone who holds himself out to be a qualified lawyer, I find it hard to believe that you could be as ignorant and crassly uninformed as your current serving of public ravings paints you to be. I prefer to think that you are promoting your public persona via that old marketing adage: “I don’t care if they love me or hate me as long as they talk about me.” (As, according to your brief bio, you are “the author of 20 books and over 100 refereed scholarly articles”, the alternative view - that you are sincere in your expressed views - is frightening in the extreme.)

For those readers who may be inclined to fall for your incontinent legal drivel, let me put the subject of “privacy” into its correct legal perspective:

In 1948, Article 12 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which laid down the first universal statement of inalienable human rights, said: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his (sic) privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour or reputation.”

Over the following decades that view was strengthened around the globe by:
European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1980)

Australia turned that overwhelming international principle into legislation with the passage of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and in 2000 passed the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000 (C'th) that generalised the legal obligation to protect individuals’ privacy to the whole nation.

That legislation made medical information the sancta sanctorum (that means “most private of all”, Mirko) of all information. You might care to rethink your statements, Mirko. (I know we can’t do much for your biases.)

Bagaric’s logic fails spectacularly.

His assertion that “…medical problems are no more worthy of confidentiality than economic or social problems” is unconvincing. You could argue that all three (and other personal) matters are more-or-less equally worthy of privacy. What if it had been an AFL player’s bank statement that was ‘found’ in the gutter? Or a record of his ex-wife’s affidavit in the Family Court?

Even if, for argument’ sake, medical problems are no more worthy of confidentiality than economic or social problems, does that render medical records worth no degree of confidentiality?

Bagaric asserts: “Legally, medical records are not confidential in the absolute sense…” and people who “happen to come across” medical records don’t have to keep them secret. What kind of ethical strait-jacket is Bagaric wearing? If it’s not (allegedly) illegal, it’s OK to do something morally objectionable? The two people who sold the document to Channel 7 have, in fact, committed an offence and have been charged. Perhaps Bagaric could offer his services in defence.

Doc Holliday is right. Privacy and especially health privacy are matters of deep community concern and our (international, national and state) laws reflect that concern.

“The right to privacy is illusory”, says Bagaric. So why are outraged when Centrelink staff are exposed for disclosing client’s records? Why are we appalled to learn about hidden cameras in change rooms? Why do we object to credit agencies passing on information about our financial status to a mortgage lender? Why would we be appalled if doctors sold our medical information to insurance companies who then refused to insure high-risk people? Why do we have laws t protect our privavcy?

“[Privacy] actually diminishes our individual and collective wellbeing,” Bagaric concludes perversely.

Tell that to the victims of secret police around the world. Or to the political party whose membership files are stolen? Or to subscribers who have their silent phone numbers sold to a marketing company. Or to the next woman who has a hidden camera stuck up her skirt.

Well said, FrankGol

A couple of other points

Yes, the courage of prominent gays “coming out” probably had a salutary effect in changing public attitudes, but there is a world of difference morally between this voluntary step and the “outing” of someone who wants their sexuality kept private.

There also appears to be an inconsistency in Mirko’s argument. “ If footballers want to party with party drugs that's their business and that of the criminal law.” Doesn’t this assume that they have a right to privacy – that their employers’ legitimate interest in knowing of their activities is confined to things that materially affect their work (a position I’d support)

While I think the right to privacy is overly emphasized, (I think the right to information is a much more important right), there are certainly times where the reality of a situation makes confidentiality an ethical responsibility. However, in the general sense I think that my right to judge someone for myself on the sum of all their actions, rather than the convenient few they choose to disclose, is greater than their right to be free from judgment of those actions.

That said, there are many cases where an individual will want to keep their medical condition private. Whether it be embarrassment (e.g. STD, sexuality), legal issues (e.g. drugs) or other reasons, if a person faces significant problems from public discloser they may not seek the medical attention they need. We would be denying them medical aid through social pressure, not very ethical. There are however cases where discloser would be responsible, primarily where the public interest is greater than the medical issue at hand (e.g. a highly contagious disease).

In the realm of politics its important to ensure that any issues of privacy do not override issues of public discloser and accountability. Too much allowance for privacy could lead to the evolution of a secret police and tyrannical government. Democracy needs openness, and politicians and high ranking government officials should not be able to use privacy laws to cover up issues that are of public (and hence voter) interest.

I think the issue is much more about the freedom from knee-jerk, mob-rule & irrational public reaction over a specific issue. People see privacy as the solution to this problem. With a little less privacy we might all realise than none of us are sin-free and no-one should be throwing stones. In an ideal world someone's drug habits would have no relation to their football careers; the recreational drug habits of a sportsman are not of public interest. However we do not live in an ideal world, so can one complete absolve themselves from the damage to a player's career that would result by disclosing the drug habits?

If the allegations thus far aired in the media have substance, then I agree with Mirko that the criminality of those involved is the most important issue, and not the ethics or otherwise of deliberately breaching the privacy of others.

But rather than focusing on the antics of a few stupid young men who allegedly feel they need to take drugs in order to have a good night out, perhaps society and Mirko should first concentrate on the actions of those who allegedly sought to profit from the medical evidence of such stupidity?

You see, apparently unlike Mirko, I haven’t forgotten that dishonestly appropriating goods belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it is an act of “theft by finding” – since appropriation includes any assumption of the rights of an owner – and theft is punishable by a term of imprisonment for 10 years.

Further, purchasing goods known to have been stolen constitutes the offence of “handling” and the penalty is imprisonment for 15 years. Then there are matters of conspiracy, incitement, abetting and being an accessory to be considered. No doubt just such issues are amongst those currently being considered by Victoria Police.

Oh... And for those who are wondering, I suggest that it’s not until your own privacy has been utterly and irreparably breached that you really get to understand how important it is. It’s much more than a matter of ethics. It’s downright criminal!

Kaz

Transperency vs Privacy. A cross-road in humanity. Unfortunately I am forced to agree; "The right to privacy is illusory. There is no rational basis for its existence. And what's more, it actually diminishes our individual and collective wellbeing."

I find the privacy issues have a double edged sword. The administrive and political processes advocating it's use are selective and damaging in many cases to those it is suppose to protect.

I agree too that; "medical problems are no more worthy of confidentiality than economic or social problems.".

If we are to SOLVE PROBLEMS we need the "whole" story. Hence this is a NO WRONG DOOR POLICY. ie: Privacy as we know it is proving demonstrably unhealthy as a Western obsession based on inward-looking selfish traits (fear to disclose) and especially "in the absence of genuine concerns regarding their wellbeing". How worried do you reckon disadvantaged people vunerable either here or in the in under-developed countries (who are wanting for the necessities of life) are about their right to privacy?

Trust in the administrive and political process appears something of the issue here if we are to face the issues of transperency.

A No Wrong Door policy is something we require urgently to inter-connect services (reduce the burden to 'run round a citizen') but it leads to other issues of how the information and the ID card premise converges onto our OPENESS and FREEDOM as citizens.

However, the longer we avoid affronting these issues, the longer it will take to help heal the political balance of issues that inflame the core of what our modern and ever changing foundations of democracry is about.

We Need to Probelm solve. We need to expose the issues hidden so we can better understand them.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Desipis and miacat agree with Bagaric that the right to privacy is over-rated.

They won’t mind then if I steal their letters, tap their phones, camp on their front veranda and organise a RTIF implant so I can track their movements?

Miacat says, “Privacy as we know it is proving demonstrably unhealthy as a Western obsession based on inward-looking selfish traits”, while Desipis thinks his/her right “…to judge someone for myself on the sum of all their actions, rather than the convenient few they choose to disclose, is greater than their right to be free from judgment of those actions.”

On that reasoning it’s OK for me to put a camera in their bedrooms to judge their lovemaking techniques – and to publish selected pictures on the net?

kaz3g wisely remarked, “…it’s not until your own privacy has been utterly and irreparably breached that you really get to understand how important it is.”

Medical files are just one aspect of privacy. Democracies need rules for the handling of all personal information - its collection, its storage, its security, its use and disclosure to others and its eventual destruction when it’s no longer needed for the purposes it was collected for.

We also need rules about security of our mail and other forms of personal communication. We need to set limits on others intruding into our personal territory and we need rules to protect ourselves against intrusive invasion of our bodies. (Bagaric thinks torture is OK as is indefinite detention; but again, on those topics, he’s lost his moral compass.)

The right to privacy is not in opposition to the right to information. The trick is to know when the right to privacy should give way to a genuinely competing right. Clearly, a right to privacy needs to be weighed against the public’s right to know about things of legitimate public concern. The right question is not ‘What are you hiding?’ but ‘Is there a legitimate public need to know about you?’

The debate is not "security versus privacy." The real choice is “liberty versus control”.

'liberty vs control' is exacty what this about.

Put another way, it is an issue of Power vs Control!

Everytime something so called "private" goes unrecorded; ie: a rape, sexual abuse, a medical condition, certain economic or social records particulary where a conflict of interest occurs... we are at odds with ourselves to reslove because we are blinded from the "whole" representing the real transperency of diverse facts.

It is through the negletful framework of data collecting and relevant statistics that this one sided authoritive paradigm of mis-leading-information starts.

Certain people in "control" of private knowledge have the power and law to project their versions of assumptions and beliefs... while the subjects (needing full representation) themselves are more often burdened to the expense of systemic and populist abuse, that which is concealed, as a subject is demeaned to a level risking in an effort re-address through her/his "capacity" to expose a projective "burden of proof".

WAKE UP. What is it you hide. I think it has more to do with factors of trust in the human and political process and for this reason the denial is to not try to understand that their are many aperspective sides to this debate.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Its a 'nonsense' to suggest that anyone owes me anything, for any reason that serves their self interest, their vanity their indulgence.

The idea that someone owes me and my cohorts of that nebulous soup know as 'society' this or that standard of behaviour because l am looking at them is pure vanity, built on hypocracy. Just because they put themselves in front of an electronic device like a camera is redundant. However, in the vein of rationalising the redundant (as OLO contributors are so fond of doing)... everyone is in the public domain these daze. There are cameras every where and everyone is looking, so everyone owes whatever anyone looking says so.

Maybe folks should hold themselves accountable to their own standards instead of entertaining fanciful delusions about how others should be what we wont be, namely perfect.

Then again... perfect people say and do nothing.

ps.

A 'right' is neither natural, nor absolute. Its not like the sun in the sky. Is a product of what people can get for themselves and paradoxically impose upon others.

You have a right to what you can get.

And l have the right to ignore what you impose upon me as you right, like invasion of privacy and personal information.

On a much deeper level, things like privacy and confidentiality go to the fundamentals of consciousness and the nature of your spirit. Its hardly surprising that few value privacy in a world devoid of respect for the integrity of an individuals consciousness/spirit.

Taken to its logically absurdist end... one will eventually have no right to the privacy and confidentiality of their own thoughts. Afterall, bad thoughts lead to bad actions, thus following the authors perversions of consciousness, we all have a right to know what is on a persons mind as it may avoid unfavourable outcomes.

Vote One... the thought police.

Careful what you wish for, you may have to live in a world where you are subject to the intepretive whims of those who will use your foolishness against you.

l have nothing to hide... so why do you look?

This is the guy who advocates torture you will all recall - he also seeks some fame by consultng for Tony "Fat Tony" Mokbel -
Still he has point to put - and doesnt he put it EVERWHERE HE CAN - DAY IN DAY OUT - ?

But back to the issue of privacy - he has a point - privacy is an artifical construct - a man made idea and we are all a bit too precious about it - still I like my privacy and that is enough for me to want to protect it - Chanel 7 might run the public interest line but I tihnk they often confuse public with prurient - ( and yes to all the pedants I know it refers to mainly matter sexual as a rule but you get my point )

As for the Footballers - I am wearied by all this - if the consumption of what ever it is they took did not effect their on field performance AND the drugs were not considered performance enhancing - SO what -

the AFL has adopted an Employee Assisitance Policy/program - probably like one that exists in the very public service J Howard and P Costello administer - so they need to shut up for a start. Give up this nonsense about 'Sending the wwrong message" - no one reeeeeally cares

There are thousands of Australians attending GPs for help with substance abuse - no one is calling for them to be handed over to the police for questioning - like so many concerned citizens seem to want regarding the footballers

Even bloody Neil Mitchel has trotted out the "what about the Kids" garbage - this is a non event and merely firms up my opinion that waht passes for journalism in this country is little more than gossip - particualrly in the sports area

the medical records were it seems stolen - Channel 7 has been implicated in recieving stolen goods - that is the story - that is of public interest - the rest is a sideshow.