Respect for privacy more of a moral than legal duty

Princess Diana, the popular Duchess of Wales, was, both in life and death, the quintessence of the most profound debate on the right to privacy.

The British tabloids were always looking for exclusive pictures of the “people’s princess” : A beautiful royal with a troubled marriage sells.

The death of the British royal along with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed in August 1997 in a Paris car crash as they fled belligerent press photographers caused global outcry. The paparazzi were accused of fatally intruding into their privacy.

Some argued, however, that celebrity life flourishes on constant limelight of a free press; so, a celebrity cannot claim the “right to be let alone”, especially in a public place. If public eyes are prying, why shouldn’t the press cameras?

Twenty years later, tapes of the princess’s conversations with her voice trainer, Peter Settelen, were the subject of a legal battle between the latter and her estate. Settelen’s lawyer said the dead have no reputation.

In essence, he was challenging the “right to be forgotten”, a term coined following a 2014 ruling by Europe’s highest court that compelled internet firms to erase links to personal data on request.

Television channels in the US and UK would air documentaries on the tapes, dividing public opinion once more. Some thought the shows betrayed the princess and her family’s private life; others said it gave them a chance to appreciate what she went through and, subsequently, sympathise with her. 

In Kenya, intrusion of privacy, especially from the dimension of misappropriation of an individual’s seclusion, is not headline news yet.

Statutes on privacy

The Kenyan press has been modest on the private lives of those in the public limelight. But whatever the reason for this apparent restraint, it cannot be said to be the outcome of the enactment of statutes on privacy.

First, it is hardly two years since the Data Protection Act 2019 and the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act 2018 came into effect. We cannot, therefore, credit this legislation for the lack of a serious breach of privacy.

Secondly, judging from the areas covered by the two laws, our primary concern and focus is on the safeguarding of the privacy of personal data and not intrusion into personal spaces.

The data law identifies privacy issues as ‘sensitive personal data’ — personally identifiable information (PII), such as email. The cyber law deals with computer crimes, including online harassment. 

In giving effect to Article 34(5) of the Constitution, the Media Council Act 2013 outlines the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism, saying intrusion into private life should be on acceptable public interest, “not merely prurient or morbid curiosity”.

Fake and manipulated information ruin the victim’s reputation. Let’s not address privacy violation only from a legal perspective but build a culture of professionalism, where standards and morals take the centre stage.

It is critical and urgent to create awareness among consumers of information.