It often happens that a person getting the media’s attention on one occasion cannot escape attacks from journalists in the future.

The unacceptable intrusion in people’s private lives is one of the media’s issues. Crossing the boundary between the public and the private is enticing for journalists. Not few are the instances where an incident or event that has no public interest gives the journalist reason to publish personal data that doesn’t solve any problems, but creates problems for the person in question.

For example, a media outlet had published news about the death of a newborn. The journalist had gotten in touch with the child’s father, and he confirmed the news, at the same time saying he doesn’t want to talk about it. The journalist had then published the entire conversation, including that the father in mourning doesn’t want to talk about his child’s death.

Included in the principle of inviolability of private life is also ensuring the option of a person to control information about himself and not to publicize personal information. 

In the Court of Justice of the European Union there is a precedence that enshrined a person’s right to be forgotten.

On May 13, 2014, the Court adopted the decision C-131/12, considered a turning point. In 2010, Spanish national Mario Costeja González appealed to the Spanish Data Protection Agency against the publication La Vanguardia and Google Spain, requested that the media outlet remove from its website a 1998 publication that contains González’s personal data.

The matter referred to an announcement for a real-estate auction, connected to González’s social security debts. Every time González’s name was searched in Google, information about his debts would appear — though he had long repaid the debt.

Google had not approved the request to remove the publication, but the European Court adopted a decision that non-public persons in Europe are granted the right to contact search engine operators and to remove their personal data from search engine results. 

An individual’s right to private life is protected by the Constitution — protect it from risks. 

Don’t forget that published information is for all time, and getting rid of it later will be very difficult. Almost impossible.

You decide whether to provide information to journalists or not. If they’ve verified your phone number, and you’re being drenched in calls and you don’t like it, simply tell the media that you’re not commenting on the situation and you don’t want to make your private life public.

Naturally, we’re not talking about public figures, including politicians. We’re talking about those instances when the story is not in the public interest and at most will become a common statistic.

If sextuplets were born in your family, then in terms of advertising this is very important news for healthcare facility. You can be assured that the information will be published by the media. You can simply ban doctors from publishing your personal data or refuse to be photographed.

Especially about people in the villages, journalists get information from village mayors. You have the right to ask the head of your community not to convey information about your personal history to media outlets.

The media reports also on accidents with all the details, publishing people’s first and last names, which child is a student in which year at which post-secondary institution, what profession, and so on.

Anyone, including representatives of the deceased, have the right to ask the media not to reveal personal data in their publications.

If as a result of negotiations the news story containing your personal data will not be removed from the media outlet’s pages, you can appeal to the Media Ethics Observatory.

Gagik Aghbalyan