Questions 49-52 Recent intrusions into the lives of public figures have highlighted the lack of laws guarding privacy in Britain. As a result, one issue under discussion as Parliament returns this week is the possible introduction of legislation to curb press powers. The government will probably take no action until it receives a report from a committee chaired by Sir David Calcutt, due in January 1993. the committee is examining whether the press should be regulated by tougher legislation. It is also considering the ways in which the press has invaded the private lives of the famous. The Calcutt committee has reported once before, in 1990. it recommendations led to the creation of the Press Complaints Commission, under which the press was given the chance to regulate itself without the need for a privacy law. It also proposed a new criminal offence of physical intrusion to obtain information for publication. This proposal, which was not acted upon, would have made it unlawful to photograph people on private property to record their conversations without permission. It would have made it an offence to enter a property to place a bug or obtain personal information. The committee said that the press should be allowed to invade the privacy of a public figure only when it was likely to expose or prevent criminal activity, otherwise his or privacy should be left alone. But a general law protecting privacy was rejected. Since then, reports in some newspapers and magazines about people’s private lives have ignored the committee’s recommendations. The private lives of Government Ministers and members of the Royal Family have featured prominently in the press. Photographs of the Duchess of York Sunbathing in France, for example, have been widely published. Some sections of the media justify their intrusion by saying it is in the public interest. In a democracy, they argue, the public has a right to know what people in positions of power are doing. Politicians and others are accountable for their lives. Privacy laws, these critics say, would protect the privileged. Additionally, many politicians use their private lives to gain popular support, for example by parading their families before cameras to emphasized “traditional value”. Hence, some editors say they are justified in prying into private lives to uncover any faults. Likewise, the Royal Family is supported from public funds, and therefore it is argued that its members should lead responsible private lives. Which is a lawful purpose for intrusion into privacy

A. To disclose criminal activity
B. To be in agreement with Privacy Law
C. To gain popular support
D. To protect the privileged