"If you are in a public space or easily observed from one, or sharing one with someone, you have no right to privacy".

Sorry I can't agree Steel. I don't think that Nicole Kidman's job for instance makes her and her family, fair game everytime she goes out in public for the media. I also don't think that the pollies by entering public life have given up the right to have some sort of normal existence, ie shopping, taking the kids to sport, without someone lurking with a camera to catch them in their tracky dacks.

People not in public life are suffering some too. I'll never forget my partner trying to look cluey at the dump on something he knew nothing about when ambushed a news crew, when dropping a load off. Shamelessly they ran him as the expert comment with no attempt to identify him - fortunately while disconcerted, he laughed. I like to sit and listen in public events sometimes. For a while there the poliferation of camera's getting stuck into filming the audience right to closeups reached the level of unpleasant at some of the things I went too. While it could be argued that it was harmless and I was not being injured in anyway, it was invasive and distracting. Being in public doesn't automatically make you camera fodder in my book.

Media Intrusion....

If the media becomes too intrusive to an individual.. the individual has a right to be equally intrusive of the person who wrote the story.. and run a protest outside their home....

They have a right to search images on the internet of the Media Executives..and raise speculative questions about their lives and behavior... including putting 'tabloid' like headlines and the images of such people on line.....

"Senior Media Executive accused of Drug use" with a very large picture of the Chairman of FairFax on the same page..but of course..the 2 stories are unrelated... this is how the Herald Sun does it's front pages on a daily basis.

So...those who 'probe' our privacy..should realize that in todays world.. their's can be also.

The higher the position.. the more images of them that most likely exist.

Privacy is a human concept, and as such is an artificial construct.

A society cannot function without connections between individuals, and the more a person interfaces with society the more treads she/he leaves open to the world. In fact the only way to ensure privacy and to prevent the information being available to all is to live as a hermit on an island.

If one cannot exclude information from the public domain, then one has to make rules as to what you can do with it, trying to balance the right to privacy with the right to freedom of speech and expression.

As the right to freedom of speech and expression is designed to allow anyone to have his say and to publish information in the public interest, and the two controls on this should be the law of libel / slander, and the laws regarding privacy.

When one sells pics of one's babies for millions, one cannot expect protection with regards the rest of one family life, but for the rest of us plebs, our private lives should be our own domain.

This isn't idle scare mongering.
Privacy debates are more often driven by myopic reasoning be that ideological, academic or plain ignorance than reality. That’s scarier!
People would be stunned at what information is commercially available if one knows where to look. Information is in its self is benign but it’s the actual/probable abuses are where the problem lies.

Proper crim can gain information on :
• How ‘worthwhile’ you and/or home are to rob.
• What expensive items you have.
• Who lives there, probable movements etc.
• Knowing exactly what and where your security is. Even alarm systems are vulnerable and more.
Don’t kid yourself that only the rich are targets, rich is a relative term.
Knowing how and when to bully…Just get behind on a loan even from the big boys to discover this. Late night threatening phone calls, intimidation all tactics used and then there’s corporate maliciousness.
Where it get really scary is when we’re talking kidnap targets or worse.

Why should richer families be at more risk because one member is “news worthy?”
Everyday families are vulnerable, particularly children are at risk.
• Explain why relatives particular children are worthy of exposure and subsequent harassment because a parent/close relative is positively or negatively “news worthy”?
• Why should “public people’s families” not be able to join in public activities like every one else?
I think it all comes down to the definition of “news worthy”. One is entitled to ask how much detail is too much… does the public really need to see blood on pavements or mangled wrecks with names to get the story? Consider the family.
How appropriate are neighbours’ comments, especially if they didn’t actually see anything.
The media today is simply a business and exposes are more to do with their interests than the public’s. Of course they’ll scream.
Consider the articles on Murdock’s wife that he used his corporate might to crush? Good for the chooks but not for the ancient rooster?

One can’t legislate for every possibility/probability but a clear charter is the next best choice

examinator: "Everyday families are vulnerable, particularly children are at risk."

examinator, your responses are usually well thought out. But in your last post ... well in it you reduced yourself to using a "think of the children" argument.

For the life of me, I can't tell whether:

1. You have suffered a brain explosion, or

2. You are trolling.

Care to say which it is? I am going to look like a real doofus if I respond as though it is a serious attempt at reasoning through the issue and you are just pulling my chain.

I just saw on the TV news, Princess Mary down in Hobart, looking extremely uncomfortable as she was filmed buying nappies at a Chemist. Clearly totally newsworthy stuff - though I seemed to have missed the bit on what was happening in Georgia, or maybe that's down the news list.

Can't see how it enriched her day, can't see how it enriched mine, and I wondered if it made the people doing the filming felt slightly dirty.

Don't know what the solution is. Maybe the Packers and Murdoch's should insist in the same level of behaviour from reporters covering other high profile families that they get for their own.