Exactly. It matters whether the breach was an inadvertent typo by the hypothetical nurse, or a deliberate snoop by someone, say, not involved in the care of patients. Or even a doctor, nurse, aide who’s not involved in the royal’s care team and would have no legitimate reason to be accessing the records other than curiosity.
Have they actually lost any trust at all? Did any of the people chasing and stirring up this complete non-event begin from a position of trusting the Royal Family, or trusting information about them?
Seems to me this has been more like an opportunity for people to express their existing views of non-trust.
I love their fried chicken dinner and boysenberry pie. Yum!
Photos that seemed to be accepted at face value in the past are suddenly being scrutinized, and accusations of Photoshop are being levied at other images, such as the Queen and her grandchildren where Louis is lit by a light source that isn’t touching anyone else in the room.
I’d say there has been a shift in trust based on the sudden revaluation of old photos.
I’ve heard that some databases have the ability to flag certain records as VIPs. When they are accessed, they will have additional flags and alerts around their access. I think I heard this about the California DMV, as they don’t want employees browsing the records of celebrities. I’m sure the admins will then do further checks to see if it was accidental or if it’s a pattern of behavior. If someone has a pattern of “accidentally” clicking on the records of VIPs, then they would likely face some kind of disciplinary action.
I’ll will have to refer those interested to the estimable William Shatner for my feelings on this revelation.
I would think that it would be a simple thing to have levels of access within the system. Someone without the proper permissions would not be able to access even if they try. We had that on several systems. Confidential investigations were tagged and you had to be a supervisor to look at the reports. Same with the body camera system.
I mean, they’ve at least lost the trust of the AFP:
When asked if the palace was still to be trusted as a source, Chetwynd answered candidly: “No. Absolutely not. Like with anything, when you’re let down by a source, the bar is raised and we’ve got major issues internally.”
These standards seem to rule out using a mobile phone camera where blending multiple frames is a standard feature.
I mean the spirit of the standards is very clear, but for anyone that wants to nitpick – an HDR image is not going to meet the standards.
I follow a couple of people on Twitter that posted nothing but this for days. I just glossed past them because I truly don’t give a shit. The only reason I know anything about it is from those fleeting Tweets. It’s not just that I don’t give a shit, it’s that I don’t understand why anyone else does either. It’s an edited picture? Welcome to the wonderful world of celebrity photos. Fercrhissakes, they’ve been tweaking photos of celebrities since about ten minutes after Louis Daguerre invented the friggin’ camera.
I’d ask someone to explain why this is such big deal but, again, I really don’t give a shit.
TL;DR - the whole thing baffles me.
If you don’t care, you don’t care. I don’t care about the winners of America’s got Talent. But there are people who do.
I don’t know why. We love our famous folks and celebrities. People stand in lines at book signings, and go gaga at Music fests looking to see/hear their favorite and maybe catch a picture of them.
It’s a truly human thing.
The picture kerfuffle maybe a little much.
People trying to get her private medical records, a criminal act?
I don’t know the laws.
The heart wants what the heart wants.
Have you heard about poor Lady Belvoir?
She’s quite doolally with felvoir!
That poxy Lord Bicester
Passed it on when he kicester
If it kills her we’ll surely all grevoir.
Yes! Inequality in access to justice is a real and pervasive problem that should be fixed. I agree! The answer to that is still not to simply do away with rights in principle. Just like in your non-Lutheran permit example, the answer is not to do away with freedom of religion altogether. Make the process more equal! Widen the scope and scale of legal aid!
Make a joke to whom though? People who also already know about Joe’s unfortunate sofa incident? Or is making a joke going to be the medium through which you publicise Joe’s private business? Given that this is Joe Bloggs and not some public individual, why on earth do you think you have the right to spread embarrassing facts about his personal life to all and sundry? How come you don’t have the right to know about his business at the beginning of this paragraph, but everyone listening to your jokes does at the halfway mark?
It may not. But it equally may. If what was on TV last night on the US was an intrusion into some individual’s private life that isn’t justified by public interest, how do you suddenly have the right to further breach that person’s privacy?
The right to privacy is as real as the right to freedom of speech, and when they conflict as rights often will, it is not axiomatic that freedom of speech must always prevail. It’s a question of weighing up the merits and harms of both sides.
For example, this story has prompted a focus on the Cholmondeley marriage (it never feels less ridiculous to type that name out) including speculation about the Marquess’s sexuality. If this is a case of a gay man being outed, is there any justification for that whatsoever?
She has cancer and is getting chemo.
Don’t know if this should be a separate thread, but I just heard (CBS News) that Princess Kate has been diagnosed with cancer and is undergoing chemo.
Sorry to hear that. Hope they caught it in time that she’ll be able to see her kids grow up.
from what i am hearing is that they were waiting until the kids were at home on break to tell them and be with them, before making it public.
Again, not knowing really anything but the surface bitching I’ve seen on Twitter, I’m thinking … are you ghouls happy now? Or are they just going go with they don’t believe her and will continue to pour shit on her?
The point of the discussion here isn’t that she owed anyone details of her medical condition. People here are asking why the palace thought sending a faked photo to news agencies was a better way to deal with this than the truth, or best of all, what they were doing originally: just keeping quiet about it.
I have the utmost sympathy for her and her family having to go through this. I wish they hadn’t made it even worse than it was on its own.