Germans and privacy law

There was an article in The Times on March 31: German obsession with privacy let killer pilot fly. The Times is not available free online but here is a link for those who can get it: Times article.

The article is by the Times Berlin correspondent David Charter and it argues that the crash could have been prevented if it weren’t for the confidentiality of German doctors.

German politicians have called for an overhaul of privacy laws that ­required doctors treating Andreas Lubitz to keep the killer co-pilot’s medical details secret from Lufthansa unless he obviously posed an “imminent danger”.

But that doesn’t mean that UK doctors would not be in the same dilemma.

It’s true that privacy law is stronger in Germany, as indeed the article goes on to say.

Under a German law that was passed in 1907, giving “the right to your own picture”, personal images may not be circulated or put on public display unless the consent of the ­person portrayed is given, which ­explains why the newspapers often pixillate some faces, and have not published pictures of Patrick Sonderheimer, the Germanwings captain, or members of Lubitz’s family.

General personal rights enshrined in the constitution lie behind the strict protection of individual identities in the German media, with many publications still referring to the co-pilot as Andreas L.

Andrew Hammel writes about the way German newspapers are loth to name Lubitz, whereas they were quick to name the Charlie Hebdo attackers in Paris: Respect our Privacy, say Germans About Germans. He links to a Washington Post article on the same subject:

Crash challenges German identity, notions of privacy

But at least by American standards, many Germans are expressing neither a strong sense of moral outrage nor a clamor to point the finger of blame.
The reason may lie in the sense that the crash is suddenly challenging some of the fundamental tenets of German life: that its titans of industry do not make mistakes. That well-thought-out rules — including those severely limiting the sharing of medical data — are things to be trusted in and strictly enforced. That in a country where Edward Snowden is nothing less than a folk hero, personal privacy must trump all else.

Exclamation mark in Supreme Court judgment

Thank goodness the Supreme Court has ruled that Prince Charles’s ‘black spider memo’ letters to parliament can be disclosed:
full judgment and press summary as PDFs on the Supreme Court site.

Judgment read out on youtube:
R (on the application of Evans) and another v Attorney General

This relates to letters predating the coalition legislation under which the royal family are exempt from freedom of information law: see 37 here (PDF).

But attention quickly concentrated on the use of an exclamation mark in the judgment (fortunately in a dissenting opinion):

LORD WILSON: (dissenting)
168. I would have allowed the appeal. How tempting it must have been for the Court of Appeal (indeed how tempting it has proved even for the majority in this court) to seek to maintain the supremacy of the astonishingly detailed, and inevitably unappealed, decision of the Upper Tribunal in favour of disclosure of the Prince’s correspondence!

Jack of Kent on Twitter:

Jack of Kent @JackofKent

So Lord Wilson has brought a long distinguished judicial career to an end by using an exclamation mark in a judgment pic.twitter.com/s8KF8QgMEJ

Umbettung

The reburial or reinterment of a body sharing the same female DNA as Richard III and many others recalls the Umbettung of Friedrich der Große in 1991. At least the pomp and ceremony in the former case will not be limited by the wishes of Richard to a burial at night by the light of carriage lamps.

640px-Grabplatte_Friedrich_II._Schuschke

Grabplatte Friedrich II. Schuschke von SK49 – Eigenes Werk. Lizenziert unter CC BY 3.0 über Wikimedia Commons

(Spiegel article on Richard III)

See also Operation Bodysnatch on the saltmine.