4 ms·
It affected rich people, wouldn't surprise me if one of them knew the judge.
by RobotToaster 4mo ago
It affected rich people, wouldn't surprise me if one of them knew the judge.
- l23k4 4mo agoThis was a decision made by five supreme court justices in a 3/2 split, do you have any particular reason to believe there has been corruption involved in this UK litigation?
- fontain 4mo agoThe case was a very big deal in London. The outcome was not one of bias, but complicated circumstance. The apartment building was built years before the Tate Modern opened their viewing floor. After the Tate Modern viewing floor opened, visitors to the Tate Modern began photographing and videoing and watching people in the neighbouring apartment building. The judge reasonably determined that there is some sacrifice of privacy made when choosing to live in a glass apartment building, but the Tate Modern's viewing floor's compromise of privacy was so egregious that it should not be allowed regardless of planning permission. There are many buildings all over London that look over one another, many of those occupied by very very rich people, it was not corruption.
- ZeWaka 4mo agoHowever, Tate got the permission to build the viewing deck before the apartments were built.
- therealdrag0 4mo agoHow can privacy be egregiously violated? Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds?
- l23k4 4mo agoIf I secretly hide a camera in your bedroom, would the violation of privacy be made more egregious if I then went ahead and broadcast that footage on TV? >Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds? For example, there would be a pretty big difference between my neighbour being able to see into my apartment and my neighbour organising tour groups to look into my apartment. I don't mind my neighbour, it is reasonable to expect that my neighbours will be able to see into my apartment. I however could not reasonably expect that my neighbours would host some sort of organised viewing activity on a regular basis.
- cindyllm 4mo ago[dead]
- bix6 4mo agoWell maybe don’t live in a city if you don’t want people to see in your house? I mean seriously floor to ceiling windows.. what the f do you expect?
- senordevnyc 4mo agoActually, sounds like they had a much better solution than moving out of the city: they appealed to a judge, who agreed with them. Sounds like you’re the one out of step with reality here.
- l23k4 4mo agoI don't mind people seeing into my flat. I would very much mind the specific, egregious behaviour described in the court case.
- RobotToaster 4mo agoCurtains were invented several hundred years ago because of this issue.
- l23k4 4mo agoI didn't know they had instagram and smartphones back then, those were key elements here.
- kergonath 4mo agoNo need for that. It’s England, preferential treatment depends more on your social class than who you know, in such cases. Knowing powerful people definitely can help in some contexts, but the judiciary is well insulated in that respect.