Uroš Mišljenović
Program Manager, Partners Serbia
Even if the competent state authorities publish information that belongs to the domain of privacy of the perpetrator or the victim, the media must not transmit that information. A mistake by state authorities does not imply "permission" to violate the ethical principles of the profession.
So says Code of Journalists of Serbia, but the practice of the media is often the opposite. Why is that so?
Every day we notice headlines and texts in the media in which traffic accidents, crimes and similar tragedies are reported in the most horrible way, by arriving at the doorsteps of the victims and their families, searching their accounts on social networks, speculating about what is (was) someone like, who is (was) someone with, etc. Information is obtained from a neighbor, a reliable source close to the family, an unnamed police source, etc. Photos of family members, the yard of the house are published, and sometimes someone's photo from the ID card is also published.
The latter - when information that is in the possession of an institution somehow finds its way to the media - represents a special problem, which illustrates the state of our media space and the level of respect for citizens' rights. It is a well-established partnership of public institutions and individual media in breaking the law, from which both parties benefit.
Probably the best-known example of cooperation between the media and institutions in violating citizens' privacy is the case of Igor Vukotić. His picture appeared on the front page of Blic as part of the Skaljar clan scheme. However, this is not a real member of the clan, but an "ordinary" man from Zemun, absolutely unrelated to any clans. Although mistakes are possible, this episode is troubling because the front page did not publish any photo of Igor, for example some vacation photo that he may have posted on Facebook, but the one created for the purpose of creating his ID card. Therefore, it is a photo that the institutions had to use responsibly and legally. However, the photo ended up in the media. The answer to the question how that happened was given by the editor of Blic at that time, as a part of the court proceedings.
Igor spoke about the consequences he suffers due to this kind of threat to his privacy during the Privacy Week. Igor still does not manage to "wash" himself from being declared a member of a criminal clan; his life is no longer the same and the fear that he may be endangered does not cease. A special problem is that the media still refuses to admit the mistake, and the institutions do not provide him with adequate protection:
"I was expecting some kind of empathy, that the newspaper would publish a correction, that it wasn't me. However, that didn't happen. The institutions didn't react, I was left to fend for myself," said Igor.
Someone from the Security and Information Agency gave Igor's photo to the media. The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Protection of Personal Data conducted an inspection and, based on the findings, filed a criminal complaint against N.N. person, due to the unauthorized transfer of personal data during the performance of official duties. This application, like numerous others with similar characteristics, did not receive its epilogue. The case is in the prosecutor's office.
Although we could believe that it was a mere coincidence, i.e. that there was no intention to endanger Igor, the damage was done. It was made by an unnamed SIA official, apparently with the intention of achieving something by giving the photo to the media. Whether it is financial or some other interests, it is unknown at the moment. But we can guess what motivated the media to take this path of obtaining information - an exclusivity on the front page brings readership, and readership brings profit.
Igor's case offers three important lessons. First, it can sometimes be heard that privacy is not that important, that we don't have to worry about our privacy if we don't do bad things, or that the damage that can occur if someone accesses our data is not great or dangerous. From Igor's case, we see that everything is the opposite. Igor did nothing wrong and now he is faced with the real fear that the same thing could happen to him as to the real members of the two clans that have been in a bloody conflict for many years. As he says:
"You are disrupting the whole system. You turn around, look... My battery didn't work, my godfather jumped out of the car, we thought who knows what's going on. Simply, everything changes in your life. The way of moving, socializing, thinking, you fall ill mentally and physically [...] Honestly, until that man is prosecuted [SIA's employee who gave the data to the media], or the one who gave the order, I will not sleep peacefully".
This thumbnail shows how important privacy protection is even when we have nothing to hide. That is why privacy is a shield against attacks on our autonomy, integrity and security.
Second, it is not only public figures, athletes or actors who are under attack from the media, nor are data from institutions leaked only if someone rebels and needs to be discredited. It is not even necessary for a tragedy to occur and for the media vultures to start dressing up the victims. It is enough that you have an interesting overlap of the name and surname with some media-interesting personality, so that the trading mechanism of your biometric data, which would have to be protected in the institution whose work we finance, is triggered. The infrastructure of violation of privacy is well developed, it is only a question of whose intimacy will appear in the attack of the media at a particular moment in the pursuit of clicks and higher sales and earnings. So privacy violations can happen to any of us.
The absence of a legal epilogue to Igor's case teaches us something even more dangerous. Institutions competent to do their job, to prevent or sanction those who hand over citizens' data to the media, have not so far given many reasons to "reliable sources" and the media to give up this practice. The prosecution has not established who misused the biometric photo from the Security Information Agency's records, so there is no indictment, which is a necessary prerequisite for the case to go to court. Conducted analyzes of court practice for criminal offenses related to the illegal use of personal data of citizens show that so far not a single case has come before the courts in Serbia characterized by a serious violation of someone's privacy or the compromise of data on a large number of citizens. The few cases of illegal use of data that have been sanctioned refer to injuries whose consequences are less drastic than what happened to Igor. All ended with a suspended sentence or warning.
The absence of effective punishment for the abuse of personal data can only lead to even greater violations of ethics in the media, and thus to new cases like the one that happened to Igor. Therefore, let's not be surprised if something similar happens again.
In some other circumstances, the conclusion of the privacy text would probably be that we need to do everything we can to protect our data. To be careful who we give them to, not to share them with everyone, not to agree to various consumer benefits that are realized through transactions to the detriment of our privacy. Although we should all apply such advice, in Igor's case it is simply not appropriate or sufficient to suggest it. There is little that the victims of such a privacy violation can do to prevent events to their detriment.
Instead, the answer lies in institutions. First, in those institutions from which data leaks, because their duty is to prevent such occurrences.
Then, the answer lies in improving the work of institutions whose job and duty is to conduct quality criminal investigations when data leaks occur.
And lastly, but not least, the professional integrity of journalists and editors must take precedence over the current drivers and motives of the daily threats to citizens' privacy rights reported by the media.
Source >>