In this essay, we try to present a case for having a general privacy offence. Privacy is about much more than voyeurism involving sexual exploitation. The recent offence of upskirting is too narrow to protect the broader set of privacy interests that exist in plural societies. Current technology means it is all too easy for the masses not only to spy, but to keep digital records of information that belongs to others including their images, voices and correspondence. We shall try to demonstrate that private acts and information that are revealed in an ephemeral sense in a public place should not be put in permanent form and a fortiori should not be published online or in hardcopy. It will be argued that publishing such information without consent or lawful justification is sufficiently harmful to justify making it a crime. It shall be submitted that while human rights law, data protection law and tort law recognise the wrongful harm in privacy violations, the protection offered by these bodies of laws is limited, because they rely on expensive civil litigation that is out of the reach of most. Billionaires can pay for nondisclosure agreements to keep misconduct (such as bullying and sexual harassment) out of the news, but many people with genuine privacy claims cannot afford to seek compensation.

在本文中，我们试图提出一个普遍侵犯隐私的案例。隐私不仅仅是涉及性剥削的窥淫癖。最近的掀裙犯罪过于狭隘，无法保护多元社会中存在的更广泛的隐私利益。当前的技术意味着大众不仅可以很容易地进行间谍活动，而且很容易保存属于他人的信息的数字记录，包括他们的图像、声音和通信。我们将尝试证明，在公共场所以短暂的意义透露的私人行为和信息不应以永久形式存在，更何况不应在线发布或以硬拷贝形式发布。有人会争辩说，未经同意或合法理由发布此类信息足以证明将其定为犯罪是有害的。应当提出，虽然人权法、数据保护法和侵权法承认侵犯隐私的不当损害，但这些法律机构提供的保护是有限的，因为它们依赖于大多数人无法承受的昂贵的民事诉讼。 . 亿万富翁可以支付保密协议的费用，以防止不当行为（例如欺凌和性骚扰）出现在新闻之外，但许多真正提出隐私要求的人却无力寻求赔偿。