26 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The Information Commissioner was pressed at the Leveson Inquiry today over whether or not he should seek out evidence of data protection breaches.
Christopher Graham said he had seen no proof of breaches of data protection beyond the “historic” evidence resulting from Operation Motorman published in 2006, which disclosed the names of 22 newspapers that used private investigator Steve Whittamore to access illegally-obtained information.
Graham said there is currently “no smoke”, and that it was not in his remit to “set off on fishing expeditions.”
“I am inclined to wait until I have more evidence of current abuse than I do at the moment,” he said, adding that the regulator had to “pick its battles” and “prioritise resources” where there is evidence of wrongdoing.
Lord Justice Leveson said that the absence of evidence does not mean something is or is not going on. “We do not know what we do not know,” he told Graham.
Graham added he was “surprised” to hear the Daily Express’ revelation earlier this month that they had used private investigator Steve Whittamore in 2010, five years after he had been convicted for illegally trading information.
He was also quizzed over a letter published today by the Hacked Off campaign asking the ICO to inform Whittamore’s targets, so they may challenge claims that searches were done in the public interest.
Graham said it would be a “phenomenal undertaking” to notify the targets revealed by Operation Motorman (the investigation that examined the use of a private investigators by the media to obtain personal information), adding that he “would have to take on a veritable army” of people to do so.
He later invited those concerned to make “subject access requests”.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
25 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Blogger and media lawyer David Allen Green has praised social media at the Leveson Inquiry today.
Green, legal commentator at the New Statesman, argued that bloggers and Twitter users should not be viewed as “rogues”, adding that social media users often act responsibly and regulate themselves by being transparent.
“Most alleged abuses by people using social media can often be traced back to someone who may or may not have an agenda,” he said.
He added it was “wonderful” that mainstream sources were co-operating with social media users, noting that “almost every journalist now has a Twitter account” and that the platform is increasingly used to distribute breaking information quickly.
Revealing he has made about “about £12” from advertisements on his Jack of Kent blog, Green told Lord Justice Leveson bloggers do not blog for the money but to “engage in public debate…[and] be part of a civic society.”
He claimed the mainstream media’s use of photographs from social media sites such as Facebook was “analogous” to the phone-hacking scandal, noting that newspapers do it “routinely” without recognising that it is a form of copyright infringement.
The editor-in-chief of the Press Association, Jonathan Grun, also appeared today. He said the news agency, which provides a “constant stream” of stories and video to major British news organisations, placed great emphasis on accuracy, adding that its customers needed to be able to rely on it without making checks.
He said most editorial mistakes occur “by accident”. He described one occasion in which a PA reporter with 30 years of experience confused someone named in a story with another person of the same name. Grun said it was the agency’s “gravest editorial error”, adding that the reporter was so ashamed that they resigned.
There will be a directions hearing for Module 2 of the Inquiry, which will examine the relationships between the press and police, later this afternoon.
Hearings continue tomorrow, with evidence from representatives from Facebook and Google, the Information Commissioner’s Office and journalist Camilla Wright.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
24 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Index on Censorship and English PEN championed the cause of libel reform at the Leveson Inquiry this morning.
Index CEO John Kampfner and English PEN director Jonathan Heawood stressed that access to justice needed to be improved, arguing that the costs of bringing libel claims forward are “enormous, frightening and chilling”.
Kampfner said it was also “extremely difficult for media faced with a wall of laws and other restrictions to find out otherwise legitimate information.”
The pair advocated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to provide fairer access to justice through offering a fast and inexpensive mediation service. Preliminary research last year showed that 96 per cent of defamation cases could be successfully mediated.
Lord Justice Leveson questioned whether or not wealthier parites would choose to take a claimant to court rather than opt for mediation. Heawood admitted he had “wrestled with” this problem.
Kampfner stressed it would be a “tragedy” if the Inquiry’s ongoing work inadvertently delayed the insertion of libel into the Queen’s speech in May. Lord Justice Leveson replied that libel reform was not directly in his remit, but said he would like to offer a “considered response”.
The pair were also quizzed by counsel Robert Jay and Leveson about the balance of 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of speech). Heawood stressed it was not the case that one was more important than the other, but rather that they are “complementary”.
On privacy, Heawood argued that there was a difference between a harmful publication in a newspaper and “real intrusion.” He cited JK Rowling’s testimony of a slipping a note into her daughter’s schoolbag as “tresspass”.
Kampfner, former editor of the New Statesman, lamented the “weaknesses” in the British media. Recounting his time as a lobby reporter, he described a “culture of services rendered” in political journalism. “Westminster is all about spin doctors feeding journalists on daily basis,” he said, adding that the so-called feral beats of the media were often “locked up”.
But Kampfner warned emphatically against a statutory element of regulation, arguing that it was unnecessary in a “robust environment”. He added that Parliament’s record in navigating the course towards better transparency and accountability was “very poor indeed”.
Citing Hungary’s “seemingly innocuous” co-regulation model, which gives the country’s Media Council the power to impose fines, Kampfner said: “be careful what you wish for.”
Heawood was largely in agreement, arguing that co-regulation was often wrongly seen as a “holy grail” or a “magical third way between statutory and self-regulation.”
Kampfner urged for improved corporate governance and editorial management. “The ‘I was in Tuscany’ excuse from editors is no excuse,” he said. “The buck stops with editors.” He suggested organisations’ quarterly board meetings having an agenda item on standards, and an improved regulator should have a standards arm.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
Index on Censorship Submission to the Leveson Inquiry January 2012
11 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The picture editor of the Daily Mail faced a tough grilling over the paper’s policy of photographing celebrities and their families at the Leveson Inquiry.
Pressed on the the paper’s seeking a photo Hugh Grant and the mother of his child soon after the baby’s birth, Paul Silva said there was no suggestion from the press release at the time that there was a privacy issue.
“It was a major showbiz story of great interest to our readers,” Silva said, adding that the paper sought a posed photo of the new family, as it had done with David Cameron after the birth of his daughter.
When asked by Robert Jay QC whether or not he should have sought Grant’s permission beforehand, Silva defended his paper’s policy. “A story breaks, we then go to their home, we ask them to pose up, if they say no we’ll move on and go away.”
Silva agreed with a celebrity asking for privacy for their children, and that he “would go along with whatever they ask”. He said it was the paper’s policy that images of children would be pixellated, and when asked by Lord Justice Leveson whether it was questionable that photographers should be taking such pictures in the first place, he responded, “possibly, yes.”
Asked why he used unblurred pictures of the McCanns’ children, Silva responded that there was no objection at the time. “It was the most intense story I’ve ever worked on,” he said, adding that in hindsight he “possibly” should not have used the pictures.
Gerry and Kate McCann, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in May 2007, gave their testimony of alleged press intrusion to the Inquiry in November, detailing how journalists had camped outside their Leicestershire home upon their return to the UK.
Silva also clarified that he only deals with pictures for the newspaper, not for its website, Mail Online. Asked about photos on the website of actress Sandra Bullock trying to shield her child from photographers, he conceded, “if that was a British celebrity taken in a British park we’d be asking a lot of questions.”
He added that the Mail’s picture desk receives 300-400 photographs daily of the Duchess of Cambridge’s sister Pippa Middleton, but there was “no justification” in using them.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
