LONDON -- Privacy is now increasingly recognized as an important human right, but its limits are not easy to define. How far, for instance, should the press be prevented from intrusive photography of VIPs? The media generally argue that it is their job to report on the movements and actions of public figures. To prevent them from doing so by legal action would undermine press freedoms. Such arguments have validity, but media intrusion sometimes can amount to harassment and needs to be restrained, preferably by an accepted code of conduct enforced by a media watchdog.
In Britain this is the responsibility of the Press Complaints Commission, which was set up by the press. If such an organization fails to do its job properly, legislation may be needed, but there is always the danger that such legislation, even if very carefully worded, will be abused by those in authority.
The biggest threat to privacy probably comes from government and business rather than the media. Fortunately, the "big brother" of George Orwell's famous novel "1984" has not materialized, but wherever you go in public places and shops there are security cameras designed to deter and record criminal activity -- although recent studies in Britain suggest that good street lighting is more effective in reducing crime than surveillance cameras.