Roland Perry on 07 October 2004 at 13:33 said:-
> Perhaps it's a special environment (most of the inhabitants seem to
> think so) but I remember being at some (in effect) Select Committee
> meetings at Westminster which were webcast. Nothing was said to the
> audience at the time, other than it being generally well
> known that the
> hearings were covered on the web and live, and that the rooms in
> question (in Portcullis House) are clearly wired for sound and TV. And
> that transcripts of the proceedings were available (so absolutely no
> privacy regarding what you said).
I would dispute the "absolutely no privacy regarding what you said".
Social groups engender their own methods of private communication which
facilitate the smooth and peaceful conduct of their business. If that is
visual, by spoken word, body language or other means/mechanisms generating
the common symbolism/metaphor or ambiguity the effect is the same.
Both data protection and freedom of information can cross those boundaries
and be seen as a threat.
Generating some privacy in public is not a new thing in many areas, as
intruding into others privacy for the good of the membership group is also
not. The digital environment can make many methods more strikingly and
openly effective though, thereby negating the group privacy previously
thought to be enjoyed.
What is intriguing is that the privacy mechanism appears to have
historically been adapted by groups to provide some group
protection/membership or recognition rituals/identification. I suppose
widely recognising the various group 'languages' is a help, but getting
beyond the adaptation of privacy as mere communication to an accurate
determination of a privacy concept is complex, although the currently
adapting environment can at times be of some assistance, where there is a
lack of focus on the objective it can also be detrimental.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Roland Perry
> Sent: 07 October 2004 13:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Webcasts
>
>
> In message <[log in to unmask]>, at 06:22:56 on Thu, 7 Oct
> 2004, [log in to unmask] writes
> >If a camera is placed in a meeting room, particularly
> because this is not
> >common practice at all councils, it could be seen as a
> reduction of democratic
> >rights and a breach of legitimate expectation. If that
> camera was also used to
> >transmit images all over the world the problem is exaccerbated.
>
> Perhaps it's a special environment (most of the inhabitants seem to
> think so) but I remember being at some (in effect) Select Committee
> meetings at Westminster which were webcast. Nothing was said to the
> audience at the time, other than it being generally well
> known that the
> hearings were covered on the web and live, and that the rooms in
> question (in Portcullis House) are clearly wired for sound and TV. And
> that transcripts of the proceedings were available (so absolutely no
> privacy regarding what you said).
> --
> Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
