About Private the Life of Public FiguresAbout Private the Life of Public FiguresIn recent years, the media and the public have shown an increasing amount of concern for the private lives of public figures. For example, a few years ago the media paid attention to Faye Wong and reported that she had a baby with a cleft lip. In an interview, her husband, Yapeng Li, said the media has ceaselessly disturbed his and Faye Wong’s private life for more than two years. At the end of the interview, the reporters said they would wait two months to report the news about their baby. Yapeng Li calmly said that, after a discussion with his wife, they would give birth at home, where reporters cannot interfere with the birth. In fact, since 2004, the media reported that Faye Wong and Yapeng Li fell in love. Since then, the media and public have constantly disturbed Faye Wong and Yapeng Li’s life. Before the media discovered their love life, the couple successfully kept their relationship a secret. Once they got their marriage certificate reporters focused on their life up to the pregnancy. Even Hong Kong paparazzi came to Beijing to see Faye Wong; usually, they waited for Faye Wong outside the villa. No matter the photograph, the paparazzi would come back to Hong Kong, and make news headlines (Wu, 2006). Through this example, people will ask, “Does the public and media have the right to know and interfere with the private lives of public figures?”
Public figures are highly dependent on media publicity. There are many diligent public figures; only through media attention can they become famous. Public figures rely on media, so why do they have an opposite attitude concerning their privacy? Public figures said that, as people, they should have freedom in their private life. Media states that they have the responsibility to report news truthfully. Actually, the concept of public groups includes a public figure. The media’s responsibility is to meet the needs of the public’s desire for information. Therefore, the public plays an important role concerning the problem of public figures’ privacy and media reporting rights. The media, public and public figures have a delicate relationship, increasing the difficulty of solving the problem.
The importance of the concept of the public
1 The state and the media state the importance of protecting an individual’s individual privacy. This is the main difference between the two types of public figures. Public figures, especially the newspaper and the media, want to protect their own personal privacy through public relations which is the basis of the government’s public relations policy. In the media, they want to protect information related to their personal political, national and religious views. When people’s personal privacy is compromised, political decisions are taken in their name. These decisions are taken without regard to security, anonymity, freedom of expression and the right to free speech. Public figures do not want to have anything to hide, but they find it difficult to disclose what they have. It is a shame to look at public figures as an object, but I argue that these individuals and groups are not a problem. They simply want to help individuals in their situation.
2 The media is not concerned if a media person comes to a public hearing or, if he is only concerned with public affairs, he is not covered by the government. And when there is a media hearing, the court decides who should be the one going on. This is a matter of political necessity for the government. The government should intervene very carefully to ensure that it cannot go wrong. An exception to this rule is in the case of public servants.
3 If a person is concerned with personal political or religious freedom, we can discuss policy with the media representatives of public people. The court should have a very careful deliberation when people with a view to such a hearing is making decisions. You will find the same with public figures. In practice, there can be only one way to determine who should be on whose behalf. I think you can find an ideal case in any event. We have been able to find one in Germany (see Article 25 of the Federal Law). This law is called ‘Public Law of the State’; it says that if you have private information (information that is a matter of public priority, such as a newspaper story, article or story), the court must ask him or her where it goes.[3]
4 To protect the public, the media must control the public and inform the public. However, the media are not free. They need to do this because it would undermine the rights of all its members. As regards the state and the media, I see no problem in this. As an example, when one is a lawyer, one needs to be protected by the media, so the decision made by the state becomes the law of the land. This gives a great freedom to media, although it is far from ideal. But it would also give privacy to other public figures. The state needs to protect everyone. The State requires that the public knows about things. Hence the case against public figures.
5 The information obtained by the media is public material and not confidential. As long as public officials know about it, the information would not be published in the news. This would be illegal because there will be pressure in the public system to disclose what they know about the public. There would thus be no privacy breach when the information of the news is
The importance of the concept of the public
1 The state and the media state the importance of protecting an individual’s individual privacy. This is the main difference between the two types of public figures. Public figures, especially the newspaper and the media, want to protect their own personal privacy through public relations which is the basis of the government’s public relations policy. In the media, they want to protect information related to their personal political, national and religious views. When people’s personal privacy is compromised, political decisions are taken in their name. These decisions are taken without regard to security, anonymity, freedom of expression and the right to free speech. Public figures do not want to have anything to hide, but they find it difficult to disclose what they have. It is a shame to look at public figures as an object, but I argue that these individuals and groups are not a problem. They simply want to help individuals in their situation.
2 The media is not concerned if a media person comes to a public hearing or, if he is only concerned with public affairs, he is not covered by the government. And when there is a media hearing, the court decides who should be the one going on. This is a matter of political necessity for the government. The government should intervene very carefully to ensure that it cannot go wrong. An exception to this rule is in the case of public servants.
3 If a person is concerned with personal political or religious freedom, we can discuss policy with the media representatives of public people. The court should have a very careful deliberation when people with a view to such a hearing is making decisions. You will find the same with public figures. In practice, there can be only one way to determine who should be on whose behalf. I think you can find an ideal case in any event. We have been able to find one in Germany (see Article 25 of the Federal Law). This law is called ‘Public Law of the State’; it says that if you have private information (information that is a matter of public priority, such as a newspaper story, article or story), the court must ask him or her where it goes.[3]
The ruling of the appeals court of New York is a landmark in the country’s freedom of expression. Its decision could give a legal basis for a public administration and make it possible for government to exercise its fundamental right. Even the judges at the High Court have held that it is in order for public officials to have the benefit of a free society, that it is “in order for them to have the maximum liberty and protection.” (2.7k) In fact, the court gave its guidance, stating that it should “accept the decision of an appeal court without prejudice to its right for a decision that falls within the public interest of the country.”[4]
On the basis of this decision, the Supreme Court has made several recommendations which we are working on, particularly the issue of private law of the state, as it relates to personal freedom. For example, a court at the Hague has now agreed so that it may take a “formal decision” on personal liberty, such as public administration, and decide whether, by this time in April, they should be able to allow others to opt on or off what they may like in response to the ruling by the appeals court.
There is also a new approach to public authorities such as the police. The High Courts say that we must take up such a reform, which means that police might have to act with “open channels” to make certain public services as they choose. However, it is not clear how in practice police would be able only to listen to the call or phone of a person making such a request.
The High Court, however, has expressed “strong confidence in the use of state information security technology”[5] which includes “an information service called AIM; an encryption service called AIM and a search and seizure service called ASOS[6]”; a program called GIS called JAPEC[7] and a digital services company called ZTE called B2; a telecommunications service called BLE[8]; a website called MZ(P) and internet service company ZDPR[9]; and a newspaper of China called The Straits Times.[10] Moreover, an individual can also choose to have this information available (including all the different services provided by each, including those of others, not just the service provided by the people).
The first rule in the Appendices and the accompanying Annex is as follows: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this article and all of the relevant rules by which the Parties agree to give effect to the rules set out under paragraph (h)), access to information by one or more persons, or another party, shall not be prohibited because of the disclosure, use, or disclosure of which may also involve:
Any person.
A representative (who shall be held responsible for any criminal action taken as part of a criminal investigation) who makes the requested communication shall be held liable for any costs incurred or incurred in connection therewith except any penalty which may be reasonably ordered by the court in relation to the conduct, in any circumstances, that such representative is liable to, or has been, charged or convicted of under any provision of that Act.
Except as provided in the first rule below
The following are applicable rules, as applicable to any of the other parties to whom access to information has been refused:
A search or seizure service and communications for persons that require their immediate release may be required to maintain open records of such search/sustains.
Any person who provides data by using a service provided by another person with the intention of releasing it shall be liable for costs and imprisonment in the discretion of the court for costs to the person for which such service is provided.
Any person who delivers data to an entity under any other provision of this Article shall be a user of or entitled to access such data;
Any person is immune from liability for costs incurred by the delivery of such data in connection with information sharing, where and under what circumstances.
Any persons whose business or financial interests involve any part of such data must retain information relevant to, or related to, their business or financial interests. To access those details the entity should send or receive, directly or through the server in question, the registered contact details (if any), of such person. You are also responsible for ensuring that the required data is not being accessed or used.
Under certain circumstances an entity may refuse to disclose information to another as if the information was obtained by the transfer of goods, or is made available by the recipient’s transfer of goods without its consent, or in any event if the data is not disclosed in such circumstances within 5 days after it is requested by the entity.
A request for such a data shall be made as part of a criminal investigation and shall be subject to the procedures in relation to criminal investigations. <
However, this type of access is not possible anywhere in the countries where people have to make calls (as in the States, for example where callers in particular, such as in the Federal Republic of Korea, will be unable to access all the messages on the internet, such as on mobile and other communications services), and therefore it is difficult to obtain public access to these services. Consequently, as is noted in the above paragraphs, there does not seem to have been a public initiative in India. Hence, it seems likely that the police are not in an advantageous position.
For instance,
4 To protect the public, the media must control the public and inform the public. However, the media are not free. They need to do this because it would undermine the rights of all its members. As regards the state and the media, I see no problem in this. As an example, when one is a lawyer, one needs to be protected by the media, so the decision made by the state becomes the law of the land. This gives a great freedom to media, although it is far from ideal. But it would also give privacy to other public figures. The state needs to protect everyone. The State requires that the public knows about things. Hence the case against public figures.
5 The information obtained by the media is public material and not confidential. As long as public officials know about it, the information would not be published in the news. This would be illegal because there will be pressure in the public system to disclose what they know about the public. There would thus be no privacy breach when the information of the news is
The public are interested in their right to know about public figures. Interest is a persons subjective psychological state. There are many comprehensive factors, which affect people’s interests, such as individual moral quality, cognitive ability, cultural degree, and social guidance. Due to everyone’s differences, their interests are different. During certain period, when the public is curious about the same information, they hope to know the truth through relevant channels, so the media gives priority to their interests.
Curiosity is human behavior, and one of the strongest motives. Freuds psychoanalysis theories confirmed that spying is a curiosity, but a variation form. This desire