self-serving stance on privacy is excruciating
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...uperinjunction
Quote:
To recap: Jemima Khan (Goldsmith as was) is the freedom of information champion – "Twitter's greatest advocate", as she described herself last year – who recently used an infinitesimal amount of her gazillion-pound inheritance to post bail for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Monday she awoke to what she called "a bloody nightmare" as a Twitter user falsely claimed that she had taken out a superinjunction to prevent intimate photos of her and Jeremy Clarkson becoming public.
Well. Were the union a matter of fact, it would surely represent history's greatest instance of a man punching above his weight (don't forget Quasimodo never actually pulled Esmeralda). But it is a fabrication, possibly chinese-whispered out of the fact that Jemima and Zac did take out a privacy injunction in 2008 when their emails were hacked.
So now our WikiLeaks devotee – Jemima is particularly passionate about "the free flow of information in this digital age" – is frightfully cross that someone has published sensational material with no regard for its consequences. She insists people distinguish between government and corporate transparency and an individual's privacy, to which the only response is: have you been on the internet lately? People do not care to distinguish between the importance of a North Korean nuclear test and whether Miley Cyrus is wearing knickers. Good luck regulating it.
Perhaps Jemima really is unable to see that in the brave new technological world it is impossible to have freedom of information without freedom of misinformation. But she will find it difficult to escape the irony that the existence of the Goldsmith siblings' superinjunction was first revealed by a certain website close to her heart. WikiLeaks: proudly bringing you details of secret US drone strikes and minor celebrity gagging orders since 2006.
|
