0f onion seller and invasion of privacy

Last week, the news headline that piqued my curiosity was on a market woman who had taken a telephone company on for invading her privacy.

Invading privacy in a marketplace?

The news was trending on social media, and coming with that headline, I pleaded for it not to be a sensational one, so I read through to the end.  

The details of the story, according to the publication, were that this company had used the onion seller for advertising claims, on which she was never consulted.

The first time she heard about it was when some friends and people she knew talked to her.

Consequently, having realised the breach of her privacy, she resorted to suing the company for a whopping GHc2M.

Fascination

My fascination with the story and the added boldness one experiences these days in the news points to a nation whose people are gradually becoming discerning.

With eagle eyes, people are now going beyond the characteristic “never mind, give it to God” syndrome and getting further to understand and challenge their rights where they feel challenged.

It is a good thing for one to know and understand one’s rights.

It makes life easier to live in a community where one can challenge issues that border on infringement of rights, especially when scammers have boldly taken over our spaces and are invading people’s privacy with the astute knowledge of information technology.

As I pondered the story in question, my mind went back to a friend’s insistence on refusing personal photos taken by unknown photographers at public or private events such as weddings, funerals or parties.  

She has consistently argued that in an age of internet fraud, one never knows where such a photo pose could land an innocent poser.

She is definitely right.

Scammers are in every public space looking for leads that would help them ply their trade and make them even more real and plausible.

With the onion seller’s case, the telco, though not a scam, is said to have used the image to promote, advertise and consequently market one of their products purported to encourage some financial service.

Years have gone by, and seeing one’s photo in the media without consent would have been something to hail for.

A star, one would have been described as.

Without much doubt, when those who recognised this lady on the set called her, there must have been some who congratulated her as a star on the set.

Even though there could be isolated cases where some people will keep quiet over or negotiate for compensation in cases of product marketing where the commercial is in a good light and would benefit their ego, considering such occurrences as privileges, things are changing for the better with discernment in knowing one’s rights.

Data protection

Thankfully, though many may not be aware, the Data Protection Act 2012, Act 843 speaks loudly for persons whose private data, personal information or likeness is used in a commercial space. As per the Act, such aggrieved individuals could seek damages or distress if they consider their privacy violated.

It is instructive to note that Act 843 speaks loudly for aggrieved persons.

It is premised on the fundamental rule that all who process personal data must take into consideration the right of the individual to the privacy of his or her communications.

This part of the Act also brings into focus a right that some people are not privy to and one tends to succumb a lot to without standing up to their right to privacy.

A specific related example is the photocopying of one’s personal National Identification card (ID) by some banks and agencies. 

The act is a rights infringement.

In an article I wrote for this column in August last year, and which was entitled: “ Photocopy of Ghana Card by user agencies: Potential risk warning…”, I drew attention to a warning issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Margins ID Group, reminding card bearers of the risk by fraudsters in cases of improper use of the Ghana card, including photocopying or sharing of digital copies.

Regulation 8(i) of the NIA Regulation 2012 LI 21117(a) allows agencies and banks to request individuals to produce their national ID card for inspection, which will be returned to the owner.

The uses, therefore, of photocopying or sharing electronic copies are not accepted.

Banks, therefore, are not allowed to photocopy cards when customers call to withdraw funds from their accounts.

In an age of increasing internet scams, even at the international level, people are warned to know their rights and be on top of what to do and not to do to expose their privacy unnecessarily.

It is even more worrying when the exposure is used for commercial advantage without notice to the individual.

We are all warned to be alert and be on top of our rights to privacy.

Writer’s email: vickywirekoandoh@yahoo.com