DId the PCC really consider the ‘potential’ audience of a tweet, via retweeting, to be relevant? The responsibility for any retweets cannot possibly lie with the original tweeter.

Wouldn’t that make any private conversation I have (which could ‘potentially’ be publicised by one of the participants) a public one?

This story can be summarised as “PCC rules that things published on a public medium are public and publishable by newspapers”. It’s essentially the same as “conversation over heard in pub can be used by newspapers”.

This is hardly “PCC rules voicemail hacking ok”, it’s neither shocking nor surprising. It’s barely even news.

The PCC? You mean the regulatory body that er, regulates its own industry? Par for the course from this bunch.

Conflicts of interest? Are you kidding?

I’m being sarcastic, in case you were wondering.

The ruling sidesteps the fact that the articles in question were unfair and unbalanced, and there was no public interest in publishing this ‘story’

Wot Aidan Skinner said.

jhughes,

DId the PCC really consider the ‘potential’ audience of a tweet, via retweeting, to be relevant? The responsibility for any retweets cannot possibly lie with the original tweeter. Wouldn’t that make any private conversation I have (which could ‘potentially’ be publicised by one of the participants) a public one?

If you had a conversation in your own home that is a conversation you’ve had in private. If you had a conversation in the street you had a conversation in public. It seems to me that using Twitter is analogous to standing on Speaker’s Corner, unless you use the option “Only let people whom I approve follow my tweets”.

In US law they ask (1) if the person exhibited a (subjective) expectation of privacy and (2) if society would find that expectation to be reasonable.

The issue to me seems like one of copyright theft but I think with this complaint the PCC have worked within common sense guidelines on this occasion.

The privacy or friends only option is there for a reason on Twitter, to not set the privacy of posts essentially makes them public.

I have serious issues with the unethical behaviour of the newspapers in question and given her non celeb status, it does seem like a violation of her privacy but with a potential 6billion viewers of her tweets, she has to realise anyone can be reading them and tailor her personal information accordingly.

Social network naivety isn’t really a viable excuse.

The PCC may be considerably less use than the proverbial chocolate fireguard but they have made absolutely the right ruling here. Twitter is a public medium and any tweet is made to the public.

I gotta say I find it hard to get annoyed at this. Particularly as the PCC pointed out that the claiment made no attempt to anonymise her tweets (ie by using a fake name or changing her settings to private etc) – people have to realise that twitter is not like facebook (which if your settings are correct *is* pretty much private) and unless you take proper steps then you can expect every Tom Dick and Tabloid to read/publish your drunken thoughts.

I’m no fan of the tabloid press or the Dacre-led PCC but it’s made the right call here. People really do need to wise up about social networking sites.

If she’s a civil servant anything she publishes on Twitter or Facebook is covered by their draconian electronic media policy – and if she doesn’t know that already she’s an idiot.

My partner works for a department and she’s even responsible for anything *I* post on her wall, which, given my feelings towards the State, means we don’t discuss her work online.

My partner works for a department and she’s even responsible for anything *I* post on her wall, which, given my feelings towards the State, means we don’t discuss her work online.

Is Sunny responsible for what we post about these puppy-fiddling sons of the Medusa?

What about the time I hired a skywriter to emblazon my drunken opinions in hundred-foot high sans-serif capitals in the skies above Huddersfield? Surely that was private?

@9

“My partner works for a department and she’s even responsible for anything *I* post on her wall, ”

How is that even legal??

‘Is Sunny responsible for what we post about these puppy-fiddling sons of the Medusa?’

No, and nor should he be: its a public forum and he should not be held accountable for what the rest of us say – otherwise he’d have to censor half of what gets posted.

‘How is that even legal??’

I suspect it wouldn’t be if it was taken to the European courts.

Here is a good analysis of the ruling from INFORRM http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/pcc-ruling-twitter-journalism-and-privacy/

Also some essential background reading from Patrick Butler
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2010/nov/15/baskers-time-for-abuse-to-stop?CMP=twt_gu

PCC has a point for once.

It’s not like your boss going through your text messages, finding one in which you bitch about your job and using that as an excuse to fire you. It’s like you telling everyone you know how much you hate your job and it getting back to your boss through word-of-mouth.