By Gabriel Princewill-
The Thurrock Independent have been slammed for breaching privacy guidelines after the newspaper revealed a woman’s bank details in a video published alongside a story about fly-tipping, according to the UK’s largest press regulator.
The objectionable article in question reported concerns about fly-tipping at a site in the local area, and included a video of the rubbish found by the editor of the newspaper after he had visited the site to investigate.
Bank and insurance documents for Ms Cosentino’s property, including her account and credit card numbers and outstanding balances, were all visible in the video.
The complainant lodged her complaint under Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Ms Cosentino the video had revealed her name and the address at which she had recently lived, as well as confidential banking information.
After contacting the newspaper and asked that this information be redacted, she said that the editor had said she should agree to speak to the council and the police about how her waste came to be at the site before he would do so. Ms Cosentino said she later contacted the paper who agreed that it would not continue to publish her private information.
The aggrieved woman also complained that her privacy had also been infringed in two follow-up articles by the paper. In one of them, she was named and another in which featured a still image from the original video footage, in which her documentation was visible but with personal and bank details redacted.
Ms Cosentino said that the editor assured her he would run a follow-up story on the matter, but had not said that she would be named. Adding to her grievance was the fact sensitive information she provided to the newspaper about how her rubbish was removed had been provided confidentially for the purposes of a complaint.
In its defense, the Independent said articles reported on a matter of considerable public interest in the local area . The publication added that prior to publication, it had considered whether it was necessary to redact Ms Cosentino’s personal information from the video, but had decided that editing the footage might affect its authenticity.
It said Ms Cosentino had given the paperwork to an unauthorized waste disposal service without making any attempt to redact her personal information. The publication added that the information was currently lying on public land, meaning the complainant had placed the information into the public domain.
The Independent also noted that the paperwork was around two years old, that Ms Cosentino had now moved from this address. The paper said it did not consider she had an expectation of privacy in relation to the documents. The paper also did not accept that the correspondence between Ms Cosentino and itself amounted to a formal complaint.
The newspaper said the editor had made it very clear to the complainant that he would continue to report on this issue, and did not accept that it had agreed not to name Ms Cosentino again, while re-iterating that there was a strong public interest in reporting on this matter in an open and transparent way, especially given the perceived lack of action taken by the relevant authorities.
PRIVACY
IPSO found that Ms Cosentino’s bank details, including account numbers and balances of accounts, was information about which she clearly had an expectation of privacy and was sensitive confidential information which had come from private correspondence.
The legitimate public interest in reporting on the issue of fly-tipping, was insufficient justification for the publication of the complainant’s bank details in the online article, IPSO ruled.
IPSO reject that the use of an unauthorized contractor to remove waste amounted to consent to place private information in the public domain. The press regulator added that while the documents were visible on public land, the newspaper had not sought to argue that this specific information was so widely known so as to constitute it being in the public domain. The case itself is an interesting example of how opposing perceptions of what is acceptable standards of reporting can leave the subject of a news story incensed and dissatisfied.