{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021870286576168928, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010558069381598794, 'mean_word_length': 4.897777777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Press and the Law of Privacy

IN 1984 in the Malone' case the United Kingdom was held to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights2 in intercepting the applicant's communications. While this case in fact concerns only the narrow area of governmental surveillance, a general reconsideration of the law of privacy, and in particular of that relating to the press, may be considered necessary, especially after the recent judgments awarded by the French courts against three English newspapers in respect of invasion of private life,3 and in the light of the practice of at least one English newspaper in publishing a separate Continental edition in order to avoid actions for breach of the individual's right to respect for his private life.4 In English law there exists at present no separate and general right to respect for one's private life, and such protection as does exist is piecemeal and incomplete. An aggrieved person must frame his action under an existing head of tort---defamation, contempt of court, trespass, nuisance, breach of confidence or breach of copyright-or he will be without a legal remedy.5 However, some measure of extra-legal protection is available through the Press Council, which in 1976 issued a Declaration of Principle on Privacy,6 paragraph (i) of which reads: