WMF – Social networking, privacy and the press Gideon Benaim, Schillings
Consensus is that elements of the press have gone too far…
All private citizens have a right to challenge intrusions into their privacy. If press doesn’t rein itself in lawyers and govt will.

Rhidian Wynn-Davies, Telegraph

More requests from readers to remove stories – view is they shouldn’t. Currently have a complaint in progress about content from Facebook.

When someone publishes something on a social network site that shows hypocrisy, info that adds colour and background – then editorial judgment.

Prof Pam Briggs

Why are people so disinhibited online?

2005 Facebook study Carnegie-Mellon students. Most people put pics online. DoBs, telephone, relationship status, political and religious views.

Hyper-personal behaviour. Over-compensation for rich social views available in real life. Over-confidence because of suppressed criticism online.

Identity management – people want to present strong identities. People often lie to protect themselves.
2002 Jupiter study found people will give up personal details for small reward.

Unrealistic view of ability to change details over time.

Q&A

RWD: Social media useful but not key driver of stories at TMG.

Stephen Abell, PCC: Online subterfuge in info gathering can be dealt with under existing framework.

GB: Privacy cases currently tend to be by wealthy individuals.

PB: Change in balance of power between social media and MSM. Individual loses power in relation to latter.

Yahoo question – injunctions and gagging orders prevent proper discussion of these issues.

Q: Chris Frost (NUJ Ethics Council): Online archiving of material presents new problems.

SA: PCC shouldn’t be used to remove embarrassing or unsavoury articles.

GB: Shame if teenage mistake re-hashed thru your life.

RWD: Not in the business of re-writing history.

Q: SEO prioritisation of stories. Apologies of updates may get less attention on search engines. Italian privacy regs allow a right to have stories ‘forgotten’.

RWD: Obligation to publish update re appeal on acquittal. Search is interesting e.g. case reporting – where a trial has got big coverage midway but little coverage of actual acquittal. Possibility of changing SEO?

Q: Are young people ‘unconscious publishers’?

PB: Difference between blogging and dialogue on Facebook etc.

Q: People aren’t stupid. They can judge online material, we alter web record at our peril.

RWD: You can shift stories via SEO. You can’t do it for every story but I can see us altering some stories, e.g. acquittals.

GB: There are spent convictions. You have to help with that. It’s important for media not to publish info from these soc media sites. It wasn’t meant to be pushed or published beyond the soc media sites.

RWD: On Rehab of Offenders we would seek guidance from PCC.

SA: PCC position is there’s no rule it has to come down.

PB: 2 transitions – people do spend little time on any one site. They do triangulate information.

Q: Rehab of Offenders Act and Contempt Acts both out of date. Like it or not, whatever we do in UK info on internet is worldwide. Hard to enforce against organisations round the world.

Q: How far-reaching do you see right to privacy?

GB: We have a privacy law, evolving case by case. Medical, private family life, children, sex life should be out of bounds. Naive people need protecting. Friends also put up stuff individuals wouldn’t.

ENDS 10:30am