Introduction
Privacy is an important ethical consideration for all content makers. Unjustified intrusion into a person’s private life can cause direct harm. Respecting privacy is essential to maintaining trust with audiences and with those who participate in or are otherwise directly affected by ABC content.
The privacy standard is about striking the balance between two competing public interest considerations: the public interest in respect for individuals’ privacy with the public interest in disclosure of information and freedom of expression.
The privacy standard
6.1 Intrusion into a person’s private life without consent must be justified in the public interest and the extent of the intrusion must be limited to what is proportionate in the circumstances.
Scope
This guidance note outlines the editorial considerations for respecting people’s privacy and when it is justifiable to intrude into it in editorial content.
The key editorial standard discussed in this guidance is privacy standard 6.1, however, consideration should also be given to the editorial policies on harm and offence and fair and honest dealing.
The privacy standard applies to all ABC content. The issues and considerations in this guidance note primarily arise in news, current affairs and factual content, but may arise in other content as well.
Key concepts
The ABC’s privacy standard contains two key elements with some key concepts to understand:
- 1.What does it mean to intrude into a person’s private life?
a. Disclosing private information about an identifiable person
- 2.In what circumstances is the ABC allowed to intrude on a person’s privacy?
a. Consent
These concepts are explained in detail below.
What does it mean to intrude on a person's privacy?
You should first consider whether the content you’re producing is likely to breach someone’s privacy by intruding into their private life.
There are two ways of intruding into a person’s private life:
- 1.Disclosing private or personal information about that person which is not already in the public domain; or
- 2.Intruding upon the person’s seclusion, i.e. a physical intrusion.
1. Disclosing private information
Private information about a person is information that the person would not reasonably expect to be shared without their consent. It is information (usually personal information) which holds the characteristics of privacy. It will vary from person to person but usually includes personal information such as health information, where a person lives, information about personal relationships, personal financial affairs, sexual orientation, criminal record.
Identification
For a person’s privacy to be breached by content, the person must be identifiable within the content. They may be explicitly identified (named or pictured) or implicitly identified (if enough identifying details are included that their identity is apparent or can be reasonably ascertained from the content). A person may be identifiable to a small group of people such as a school community, or even just identifiable to one other person, even though they may not be identifiable to the wider audience. Reducing the size of the group that the person is identifiable to may lessen the extent of the privacy intrusion. More on proportionality later in the guidance.
In some circumstances it may be necessary to de-identify a person in order to avoid breaching their privacy. This is usually in cases where there is no public interest in identifying the person, where the person’s identity is not central to the story or where the person is particularly vulnerable (for example, children).
De-identification means making sure we are not identifying the person to anyone who would not already know the private information that is being disclosed about them.
Pixelation of a person’s face or removal of identifying information such as a name is not necessarily sufficient to de-identify the person.
For example, in a story about domestic violence, if a person’s attendance at a particular medical centre is disclosed along with other details about them that person would likely be identifiable from the story to their perpetrator. Even though the person may only be identifiable to themselves and one other person, this could still be a breach of privacy, as it identifies them and reveals private information about them to another person.
The public domain
Material that is already legitimately in the public domain (usually because consent has been given or it has been published by the person) is unlikely to be considered private information. However, consideration must be given to the nature and context by which the information is in the public domain.
- It is generally acceptable to use content obtained from online or social media sites where there are no access restrictions. But not if it’s posted without the affected person’s knowledge or consent. See guidance note Use in news reports of pictures from social networking sites
- Using material that has previously been disclosed by a person on a confidential basis, or to a limited or closed circle of recipients, may be an invasion of the person’s privacy. Its private nature may be implied, even if there was no express request to keep it confidential.
- Material that has been previously published but reached a small audience only may, over time, regain the characteristics of privacy, if it is not widely known in the community. A case by case consideration would be required, including consideration of the amount of time that has passed since the original publication.
- Publication of private information by another media outlet does not automatically mean the information is no longer private (i.e, another outlet breaching a person’s privacy does not justify the ABC also publishing the information). A case by case consideration is required to determine whether it is editorially sound for the ABC to add to the scope of publication by also publishing the information.
2. Intrusion upon seclusion
The second type of intrusion into a person’s private life would usually occur during the production of content, where there is a physical intrusion into a person’s seclusion. This refers to instances where a person would have a reasonable expectation that their activities would not be observed or overheard by others. For example, people have an expectation of privacy over things they do within their own home.
Any intrusion that is not in or not proportionate to the public interest may be a breach of privacy. It can still be an intrusion of privacy to capture someone doing an everyday activity. Sexual activities will usually fall into the category of activities where a person would have a reasonable expectation that they won’t be observed or overheard by others.
For example, it will likely be a breach of someone’s privacy to film them engaged in a private activity on private property, where they could not be seen from public land - but it may not be a breach if filming in a public place incidentally captures that person in their private property through a window.
People may also have an expectation of privacy in a public place, if they are doing something of a private nature (for example, having a conversation in a public place where the participants would not expect to be overheard) or in a vulnerable situation, such as receiving medical care.
Any intrusion must be justified from the outset, as well as what is published. Consideration must be given to the public interest from the very beginning of your work researching a story. It is not appropriate to intentionally intrude on a person's private life in the story gathering process without sufficient public interest both during this process and in what is broadcast or published. Any proposal which may risk breaking the law must be upwardly referred and legal advice sought.
There are some circumstances where a person’s seclusion may be reasonably intruded upon using secret recording devices, but only where there is very strong public interest and relevant approvals are sought in advance. The use of secret recording devices should be upwardly referred and is covered in this guidance note: Secret recording devices in news, current affairs and other factual content
In what circumstances is the ABC allowed to intrude on a person’s privacy?
An intrusion of privacy is justified if we have consent or if the extent of the intrusion is justified in the public interest.
Consent
Disclosing personal information or intruding upon someone’s seclusion will not be a breach of the privacy standard if the person has provided consent.
- Consent can be express or implied; for example, where a person is a willing participant in an interview, consent is implied. However, the absence of an objection will not automatically be taken to be consent. It is important to ensure that the person understands what they are consenting to.
- Consent should not be obtained by deception.
- If a person’s privacy is being infringed and they ask not to be recorded then this should be respected unless there is a good reason not to.
- Consent to an interview does not necessarily amount to consent to use additional personal information or material.
- Personal information can only be used for the purpose that was consented to. For example, consent to use an image for a specific story does not amount to consent to use that image for any story at any time. Take care with archival footage which may be outdated.
- Careful consideration should be given to any reasonable objections or requests to withdraw consent. See further ‘When interviewees change their minds’ in our guidance on interviewing
Consent from all parties
Even when you have consent from one person, take care to ensure that you are not inadvertently breaching another person’s privacy. This issue usually arises in situations where a person is sharing a personal story, and they may reveal personal information about another person (such as a family member). In these situations, consider whether it is appropriate to also seek consent from that person, or whether other steps should be taken to remove the personal information or de-identify that person.
Sometimes parents may share personal information about their children. A parent’s willingness to share such information isn’t the only relevant consideration. Be mindful of the risk of publishing personal information about a child even if the child’s parent has provided consent. See further below under Children and young people.
The public interest
Public interest is a key guiding principle in the application of the privacy standard. You must always have a clear understanding of the public interest in any story or piece of content when considering intruding into a person’s privacy.
An intrusion into a person’s privacy without consent must be justified in the public interest. However, the extent of the intrusion must be proportionate in the circumstances. The disclosure needs to be directly relevant to the public interest and no more than is necessary to satisfy its editorial and public interest value.
The ‘public interest’ cannot be exhaustively defined. It includes but is not confined to:
- exposing or detecting crime and fraud;
- exposing significantly anti-social behaviour;
- exposing corruption or injustice;
- disclosing significant incompetence or negligence;
- information which protects people’s health or safety;
- the culture and conduct of people in power;
- the principle of open justice;
- preventing people from being significantly misled by a statement or action of an individual or organisation in relation to a matter of public importance;
- disclosing information that assists people to better comprehend or make decisions on matters of public importance.
The importance of the public interest means our default approach to journalism is to identify the people we are reporting on, particularly when they are a public figure or the subject of allegations. The ABC seeks to balance respect for an individual’s privacy with the public interest in disclosure of information and freedom of expression.
As we only disclose information without consent that is directly related to the public interest in the story, the extent of the intrusion must be proportionate to the public interest in the circumstances. A greater intrusion into a person’s privacy means there must be a stronger public interest to justify the intrusion. The details or images used must be editorially relevant and necessary, and the level of exposure must be proportionate to the public interest.
For example, it may not be in the public interest to disclose a politician is in a relationship but may be relevant if the politician is using public funds to pay for dinners and hotel rooms or is using their position to ensure their partner’s company receives government contracts.
In situations involving personal suffering, pain or grief, the public interest must be balanced against individual human dignity and the feelings of grieving families.
For more information see guidance note Dealing with trauma and survivors of trauma
Safety
Before deciding to publish private information in the public interest you need to consider the person’s safety. As previously noted, the importance of the public interest means our default approach to journalism is to identify the people we are reporting on, particularly when they are a public figure or the subject of allegations.
This consideration relates to the ABC’s standards on harm and offence. Where harm to an individual, physical or psychological, is reasonably likely from the disclosure, it also needs to be justified by the editorial context.
A name, image, address or other information which a person would not reasonably expect to be shared without their consent could, if made public, give rise in a risk to their safety.
As with all decisions to publish private information without consent, the extent of public interest is the relevant consideration. In this situation, you should take reasonable and appropriate steps to minimise the release of private information as much as possible and in doing so reduce the risk to a person’s safety.
Other guidance
Children and young people
There is generally a greater presumption over children and young people’s right to privacy. Parents and caregivers have high expectations of privacy in relation to their children’s lives, and stronger public interest justification is generally required for intruding on children and young people’s privacy compared to the privacy of adults. Depending on their age and maturity, children and young people may not have the capacity to consent to the disclosure of personal information, and there can be a greater potential impact or harm resulting from the publication of private information about a child or young person.
A child’s consent to the disclosure of personal information or intrusion into their privacy should generally be sought as well as that of their parent or guardian. A child’s refusal to take part should be respected. Make sure the parent or guardian is the proper person to provide consent (for example, if grandparents provide a picture of the child, it may still be necessary to seek the parents’ consent for its use). For further information see this guidance note Children and Young People: Managing their Participation in Broadcast.
Public figures
Public figures such as politicians, celebrities, prominent sports and business people and those in public office have a right to privacy in relation to their private lives. Publishing information about their private lives is usually only in the public interest when it reflects on their public role or activities.
The key consideration when contemplating publishing private information about a public figure is whether the information is in the public interest and relates to their public actions or duties, including the use and abuse of power.
People who are not public figures but who become newsworthy due to involvement in newsworthy events still have a right to privacy and should only be identified where it is justified in the public interest and is editorially relevant or they have given consent.
Status of guidance note
This guidance note, authorised by the Managing Director, is provided to assist interpretation of the Editorial Policies to which the guidance note relates. Guidance notes provide advice to assist in the interpretation of the Editorial Policies, which contain the standards enforceable under the ABC’s internal management processes and under the ABC’s complaints handling procedures.
It is expected that staff will normally act in accordance with the advice contained in guidance notes. In a given situation there may be good reasons to depart from the advice. This is permissible so long as the standards of the Editorial Policies are met. In such situations, the matter should ordinarily be referred upwards. Any mandatory referrals specified in guidance notes must be complied with.
Issued: 8 September 2025