A message was automatically pinged to all her friends informing them of this change of status. Word spread so quickly that her husband, 41-year old actor and producer Craig Darby, discovered about it from chatter in his local pub.
He told her how hurt he was, Lauren amended her Facebook status back to 'married' and they may both now be laughing about it but for the fact that the next day Craig fell off his motorbike and ended up in a coma in hospital.
All of which shows the strange relationship we now have with the notion of 'privacy'. Even stranger when you consider that we know about this domestic trauma only because Lauren Booth splurged it across two pages of a national newspaper.
Celebrity privacy is a very elastic thing. On the one hand we have Amy Winehouse winning an injunction to keep paparazzi 100 metres from her front door. On the other hand, we have Stephen Fry Twittering every waking moment and Ashton Kutcher sharing a photo of his wife Demi Moore's bikini-clad bottom with the world without consulting her.
We know already that 'privacy' is now enforceable at law under the Human Rights Act. Formula One boss Max Mosley had, the courts deemed, a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' when he indulged in a session of sado-masochism which was not, as the News of the World wrongly alleged `a sick Nazy orgy'. But beyond the strict interpretations of one article of one particular statute, technological advances mean we are daily finding ourselves re-negotiating our ideas of privacy, natural justice and human rights.
The government is due to publish plans to destroy DNA profiles of nearly a million innocent people, held on the police's national data base, after a ruling by the European court of human rights. If I were one of those million people, would I much care that my DNA profile was held, even though I had committed no crime? Frankly, I would not. I may also wonder whether, in putting right this puny wrong, we may also destroy the DNA profile of a hitherto unknown Ian Huntley or Peter Sutcliffe.
The chief objection to the DNA of innocent people being held is that, in so doing, the state assumes you may one day commit a crime. But doesn't that same assumption underpin the use of CCTV? How can we object to a digital image of our DNA resting on a computer somewhere, but be so sanguine about our every move being observed and recorded by so many TV cameras?
More hypocrisy: entire neighbourhoods have risen up in protest at cars bearing Google's Street View cameras taking an image of their homes. But we also hear this week that one in ten of us has used the internet to find out how much our neighbour's home is worth. Is it possible that the same people bleating about Google invading their privacy are indulging in cyber-curtain twitching to get the lowdown on their neighbour's finances?
While the idea of ID cards - for which Manchester has the dubious honour of being a pilot area - can still raise the hackles, we unblinkingly inhabit a world in which our credit card records, mobile phone calls and data from our internet service provider together create a detailed history of where we are, what we do, what we buy and our innermost thoughts.
Our internet searches alone tell us so much that, the expression goes, Google knows you are pregnant before you do.
All these are generational issues. Those growing up with Facebook and Twitter - sharing their holiday snaps with the world without a moment's hesitation - will have very different assumptions about the dividing lines between public and private information when they take the levers of power.
At the grand old age of 41, however, Lauren Booth should really have known better.
The national service that's quite a drag
WE have had periodic `Buy British' campaigns, but never, as far as I know, urgings to smoke ourselves silly in the national interest.
Yet that is just what is happening in Hubei province, China, where, in a bid to boost tax revenues and safeguard local manufacturers, officials have been told to gasp their way through 230,000 packs of Hubei-branded cigs. Teachers have been given smoking quotas and local government employees told they will be fined for smoking rival brands.
Puts me in mind of the selfless dedication of Waynetta Slob who, on discovering she was pregnant, switched to untipped tabs, proudly informing hubbie Wayne: `I am now smoking for two'.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
I suggest that Gordon Brown gives serious consideration to the smoking thing here. The economy seemed to crash after the introduction of the smoking ban.
So, it seems, as well as closing a lot of pubs, and making those that survive smell of sweat, BO, cabbage-based gas and bad breath, the ban on smoking has also ruined our economy.
Well done labour.
Paul writes that it was the 'courts' who deemed Moseley had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' when it was in fact a single high court judge. I'm not that convinced that Moseley's reasonable expectation of privacy would have been upheld by all judges. Remember the General Pinochet case, when the Spanish government wanted him extradited for crimes against humanity?
First, a high court judge ruled he should be extradited and his decision was appealed. Two appeal court judges ruled he shouldn't, the third ruling he should. Finally, the case was decided by five law lords: three ruling he should be extradited, two ruling he shouldn't. So, Pinochet was destined for Spain and a trial until the Home Secretary ruled he shouldn't be extradited for health reasons.
Why I am alluding to the Pinochet case is for this reason: all of the nine judges heard exactly the same evidence and four ruled against extradition while five ruled for it. So, it is clear that under British law there is no definitive rulings, and that a lot is left up to how a judge (jury) interprets the evidence which will be different in each case. So, as for a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' I think this will run and run and each case will be decided on their merits.
What information about my activities I care to place in the public domain is my business and mine alone, provided that I stick to the Ten Commandments.
I do not have to use credit cards, loyality cards, mobile phones, social networking sites, the internet from home, etc, etc.
The government and big business tracking my every move for its own dubious ends is another matter altogether. They want to put our intimate bodily details on a huge database, at our expense, yet they already know that in certain circumstances DNA profiles are not unique and they can not prove that any other biometric attribute is unique and is incapable of being duplicated under any circumstances.
CCTV is everywhere and has done wonders for the balaclava importers and now the crooks pinch the tapes along with the safe!
With the onset of swine 'flu,everyone will soon be wearing face masks. This is fantastic news for muggers,burglars,terrorists and assorted swamp life.People won't be able to identify them and CCTV rendered useless! Imagine an ID parade with a line up all wearing face masks? Carry on Constable,springs to mind!