Yes, you are
and the law already covers that, so if someone blows your privacy with no public interest you can get an injunction, or just take them to the cleaners afterwards.

But the Trafigura case didn't come to light for years, and only after an MP mentioned it in the westminster using his commons priviledge
(Bazongaloid, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:42, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

Because they was a valid injunction in place.
And I don't mean valid, just enforceable.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:44, Reply)

Yes, exactly
they got away with having a super injunction which prevented papers publishing that they have caused a fucking awful spill and the only reason it came out was because an MP got involved. There was clearly a public interest.

This is a good case to demonstrate the dangers of the existence of super injunctions.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:47, Reply)

Judges fault.
Not the legislation or principle.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:52, Reply)

No, I think it's very much the fault of the principle.
The story itself clearly had public interest so while the specifics of the actual fault were being worked out the papers could have been reporting that a spill happened, but that the person whose fault it was had not been determined. There was no need to have a super injunction. The fact that they exist is dangerous as it gives the power to the people who have lots of money, it's got fuck all to do with "general rights to privacy".
(Bazongaloid, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:57, Reply)