- some cultures have no concept of privacy
- is there a connection between the concept of privacy and the “aggressive western eye”? in order to establish a line between private and public is do you have to “see all”?
- or is “seeing all” a state of pre consciousness – not being able to see the wood for the trees?
- in a world of Google Street View do we now see all?
- does the concept of privacy rights emerge from ideas about the nobility of man and his “rights” (and should therefore be treated sceptically?)
- tweets are not phone calls – they are published, permenant and therefore subject to the law – people are outraged by having their phone calls hacked but are happy to make their tweets public
- interesting conversation between lawyers on Newsnight last night seemed to be about tactics not principle – Twitter is within the reach of the law but what’s the best way to stop people tweeting injuncted information
- if journalists wish to challenge an injunction they should go to court – but that’s a lot more expensive than an anonymous tweet – a power imbalance
- the feeling that this is one group of powerful elderly men (judges) protecting another group of powerful younger, more potent men (footballers) against women
- private behaviour does have an impact on public accountability – if someone shows poor judgement and treats people badly in their private life then surely this must influence their public judgement
- Pictures of Imogen Thomas outside the High Court (this seems relevant but I can’t quite work out why)