Reposted by Privacy Maverick
Everyone involved in this process — including the Palantir employees — have to be investigated and probably go to jail.
Privacy Maverick
@privacymaverick.bsky.social
920 followers 351 following 163 posts
Privacy provocateur
![The Test for Intrusion upon Seclusion
[42] In order for a plaintiff to establish the tort of Intrusion upon Seclusion they must prove the following on a balance of probabilities:
a. The defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless;
b. The defendant must have invaded, without lawful jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s private affairs, or concerns; and
c. A reasonable person, in the position of the plaintiff, would regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation, and anguish.
[43] I recognize that the third element of this test is slightly different from the test for Intrusion upon Seclusion in Ontario. In Ontario, the third element of the test is simply that a “reasonable person would regard the invasion...”, rather than a “reasonable person, in the position of the plaintiff, would regard the invasion...” However, like the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN Ltd, [2004] UKHL 22, and this Court in Shillington, I prefer the reasonable person to be considered is the person affected by the publication, rather than the viewer of the publication.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bdoom6ykbtxnafeysttw4nly/bafkreicv5i4z4wmwemulkthdkqvueuafrzllk72q55r4dx7w6l6egxqpsi)
