Employing 'lip-readers' & reporting what they think has been said in the press seems to be in vogue at the moment. Is this not an intrusion of privacy on a par with phone-hacking? in fact is this not worse, because with a voice recording you have the evidence of what was said, with lip-reading you may have only what they think was said & it is impossible to corroborate?
I think what Khandro is complaining about, quite rightly I think, is that the press are hiring lip-readers to find out what people were saying in private to each other; it's on a par with phone-tapping. They were publishing what (they thought) the king said to the queen and is son at the coronation.
//but you knew that, 1ozzy.
//
It's so good to know that other people know me better than I know myself Naomi.
Thank very much for your valued input.
Much appreciated,,
These lip reading "experts", having deciding what they think has been said, then repeat it, so it's not for the benefit of the deaf. Yes, total intrusion.
I've just been reading snatches of what was said between Harry and either Beatrice or Eugenie's husband in the abbey. Not the whole conversation, just enough to encourage people to make their own ideas of what it was about. I think it's dreadful that the royals can't move or speak at the moment without some 'expert' spouting.
I don't think it could be -- the conversation may well be intended to be private, but if it's happening in public view then it can hardly be made illegal to report what was said, or at the very least to speculate.
I don't wish to defend the practice from a moral viewpoint, but it's presumably not that dissimilar to a "hot mic" situation, and I don't think I'd agree with Khandro's comparison to phone-hacking.
naomi// How can outlawing lip reading possibly be policed?//
It can't & isn't the problem (I'm quite good at it myself) but the press printing what their hired lip-reader thinks was said should be outlawed. It is really an outrageous invasion of privacy.
If it's happening in a public place, the people concerned can't have any expectation of privacy. The onus is on them to make sure what they're saying remains private.
If it's not public, e.g they're in a private residence and someone's spying on them with binoculars, it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
It could be a useful asset used lawfully for crime/terrorist prevention. If the King really said what was reported by the lip reader I would be a miffed if I had organised that great ceremonial pageant. I bet he wasn’t up at 0300 for the last several weeks getting the timing right at rehearsals!!