← Back to context

Comment by fontain

6 hours ago

The 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.

8 comments

fontain

Reply
therealdrag0  5 hours ago

How 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  4 hours ago

    If 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.

ZeWaka  5 hours ago

However, Tate got the permission to build the viewing deck before the apartments were built.