*/
Siobhan Grey discusses the Tate Modern and Gray’s Inn symposium on voyeurism, privacy, censorship and surveillance
The curtain has now fallen on “Exposed” the Tate Modern’s provocative photographic exhibition. It skilfully captured the political and cultural zeitgeist through an exploration of the themes of voyeurism, privacy and surveillance and raised important ethical questions about the taking of illicit or covert photographs.
The visual backdrop
The exhibition featured 250 works by celebrated artists including Henri Cartier-Bresson’s erotic images of prostitutes in a Mexican barrio; Kohei Yoshiyuki’s 1970s nocturnal images of lovers entwined in Tokyo’s parks watched furtively by salivating spectators, and Ron Galella’s relentlessly aggressive photographic pursuit of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. The shadow of death loomed large; the exhibition included iconic pictures from Vietnam: Malcolm Brown’s image of the monk immolating himself before US TV cameras and Eddie Adams’ shot of the quick and casual execution on the street of a suspected Viet Cong.
Against this striking visual backdrop a symposium was staged within the surveillance hall of the exhibition’s 13 rooms. Chaired by Charles Haddon-Cave QC, it featured Lord Hoffmann, retired Law Lord; Alison Jackson, contemporary artist and film-maker; Max Mosley, former President of FIA and Henry Porter, Observer journalist, Co-Director of The Modern Convention on Liberty and London’s Editor of Vanity Fair. In a ground-breaking collaboration between Tate Modern and Gray’s Inn, the worlds of art and law came together to focus on our society’s growing obsession with watching and being watched.
Protecting privacy
Lord Hoffmann brought to the evening his customary intellectual gravitas posing two questions: “Should the law protect privacy?” and “Can the law protect privacy?”. The first question he answered with an unequivocal “yes.” The growth in technology allows for every detail of our private life to be captured; however, he argued, the privacy of our lives still needs to be protected. He considered the influence on English law of the European Convention on Human Rights and reviewed continental legal systems which provide for privacy protection.
The second question, “Can the law protect privacy?” did not yield a similarly satisfactory answer. This was for two reasons. First, the huge cost in bringing privacy proceedings tends to inhibit anyone other than the very rich or those on a conditional fee arrangement from bringing these actions. Second, once the private information that requires protection has been made public, legal action becomes an ineffective response.
Remedies for invasion of privacy
Lord Hoffmann’s doubts about an effective remedy in the context of privacy cases was powerfully illustrated by Max Mosley, who, through his own case, demonstrated the redundant nature of a post-publication remedy. Although he was awarded £60,000 for the invasion of his privacy by the News of the World, the damage caused to him by that invasion was permanent, constant and worldwide. His recovered costs of £420,000 set against his actual costs of £510,000 still left him £30,000 out of pocket and he was subjected to the detailed exposure of the very information that the court ruled was private. In January 2011 the European Court of Human Rights will consider Mr Mosley’s application that the UK government should make “prior notification” compulsory, which would allow for the subject of a news story to be informed in advance of publication providing the opportunity of an application for an injunction.
An artist’s perspective
An artist’s perspective was delivered by Alison Jackson who provided a thrilling cultural counter-blast to the narcissism of the celebrity and the voyeurism of the public. In her work, Jackson uses celebrity lookalikes posing as real stars in surprising and sometimes shocking situations, revealing what might or might not be going on behind the closed doors of the famous. Her photos demonstrate that whilst seeing is believing, reality is another story and the camera can indeed lie.
State surveillance
The last speaker, Henry Porter, focused on surveillance by authority and government. He said that outside North Korea, the British were the most watched public in the world and stressed the need to define and to set the limits of State surveillance. He spoke with conviction about the alarming case in June of this year involving the installation by West Midlands’ police of over 200 cameras in two predominantly Muslim areas of Birmingham with virtually no consultation or oversight – a further example of State surveillance, now fortunately decommissioned.
A lively question and answer session produced a moving contribution from Lord Prescott who lambasted the press for hounding families unwittingly caught in the cross-fire of an expose, inflicting collateral damage in pursuit of their story – a high note on which to end the evening.
Unquestionably, the rise of the internet has had a dramatic effect on our privacy. Have the likes of FaceBook, Twitter, reality TV and Google Earth turned us into a society of voyeurs and exhibitionists, lowering our guard against excessive surveillance of our lives at the expense of our privacy? Has our predilection for watching Big Brother encouraged Big Brother to be watching us?
Siobhan Grey, Charter Chambers, organised the symposium. She also introduced the event
An edited version of this article was published in The Lawyer (8 November 2010)
The visual backdrop
The exhibition featured 250 works by celebrated artists including Henri Cartier-Bresson’s erotic images of prostitutes in a Mexican barrio; Kohei Yoshiyuki’s 1970s nocturnal images of lovers entwined in Tokyo’s parks watched furtively by salivating spectators, and Ron Galella’s relentlessly aggressive photographic pursuit of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. The shadow of death loomed large; the exhibition included iconic pictures from Vietnam: Malcolm Brown’s image of the monk immolating himself before US TV cameras and Eddie Adams’ shot of the quick and casual execution on the street of a suspected Viet Cong.
Against this striking visual backdrop a symposium was staged within the surveillance hall of the exhibition’s 13 rooms. Chaired by Charles Haddon-Cave QC, it featured Lord Hoffmann, retired Law Lord; Alison Jackson, contemporary artist and film-maker; Max Mosley, former President of FIA and Henry Porter, Observer journalist, Co-Director of The Modern Convention on Liberty and London’s Editor of Vanity Fair. In a ground-breaking collaboration between Tate Modern and Gray’s Inn, the worlds of art and law came together to focus on our society’s growing obsession with watching and being watched.
Protecting privacy
Lord Hoffmann brought to the evening his customary intellectual gravitas posing two questions: “Should the law protect privacy?” and “Can the law protect privacy?”. The first question he answered with an unequivocal “yes.” The growth in technology allows for every detail of our private life to be captured; however, he argued, the privacy of our lives still needs to be protected. He considered the influence on English law of the European Convention on Human Rights and reviewed continental legal systems which provide for privacy protection.
The second question, “Can the law protect privacy?” did not yield a similarly satisfactory answer. This was for two reasons. First, the huge cost in bringing privacy proceedings tends to inhibit anyone other than the very rich or those on a conditional fee arrangement from bringing these actions. Second, once the private information that requires protection has been made public, legal action becomes an ineffective response.
Remedies for invasion of privacy
Lord Hoffmann’s doubts about an effective remedy in the context of privacy cases was powerfully illustrated by Max Mosley, who, through his own case, demonstrated the redundant nature of a post-publication remedy. Although he was awarded £60,000 for the invasion of his privacy by the News of the World, the damage caused to him by that invasion was permanent, constant and worldwide. His recovered costs of £420,000 set against his actual costs of £510,000 still left him £30,000 out of pocket and he was subjected to the detailed exposure of the very information that the court ruled was private. In January 2011 the European Court of Human Rights will consider Mr Mosley’s application that the UK government should make “prior notification” compulsory, which would allow for the subject of a news story to be informed in advance of publication providing the opportunity of an application for an injunction.
An artist’s perspective
An artist’s perspective was delivered by Alison Jackson who provided a thrilling cultural counter-blast to the narcissism of the celebrity and the voyeurism of the public. In her work, Jackson uses celebrity lookalikes posing as real stars in surprising and sometimes shocking situations, revealing what might or might not be going on behind the closed doors of the famous. Her photos demonstrate that whilst seeing is believing, reality is another story and the camera can indeed lie.
State surveillance
The last speaker, Henry Porter, focused on surveillance by authority and government. He said that outside North Korea, the British were the most watched public in the world and stressed the need to define and to set the limits of State surveillance. He spoke with conviction about the alarming case in June of this year involving the installation by West Midlands’ police of over 200 cameras in two predominantly Muslim areas of Birmingham with virtually no consultation or oversight – a further example of State surveillance, now fortunately decommissioned.
A lively question and answer session produced a moving contribution from Lord Prescott who lambasted the press for hounding families unwittingly caught in the cross-fire of an expose, inflicting collateral damage in pursuit of their story – a high note on which to end the evening.
Unquestionably, the rise of the internet has had a dramatic effect on our privacy. Have the likes of FaceBook, Twitter, reality TV and Google Earth turned us into a society of voyeurs and exhibitionists, lowering our guard against excessive surveillance of our lives at the expense of our privacy? Has our predilection for watching Big Brother encouraged Big Brother to be watching us?
Siobhan Grey, Charter Chambers, organised the symposium. She also introduced the event
An edited version of this article was published in The Lawyer (8 November 2010)
Siobhan Grey discusses the Tate Modern and Gray’s Inn symposium on voyeurism, privacy, censorship and surveillance
The curtain has now fallen on “Exposed” the Tate Modern’s provocative photographic exhibition. It skilfully captured the political and cultural zeitgeist through an exploration of the themes of voyeurism, privacy and surveillance and raised important ethical questions about the taking of illicit or covert photographs.
Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Baffled by the government’s proposed s 41 reforms and by the Law Commission’s preferred model, Laura Hoyano looks at what won’t work, and what will
Ever wondered what a pupillage is like at the CPS? This Q and A provides an insight into the training, experience and next steps
