Discuss the relevant ethical and legal issues raised by the four paragraphs of information below.

Legal and Ethical Issues
The violations in the given case based on the information provided begins with the wrongful use of private information according to the Privacy Amendment Act of 2001 in (Council, 2001) where the use of private information like address is being used to trespass the property instead of assisting in the search of the missing women. The act indicates this as a legal issue of misuse of information instead of the original intended purpose. The incident reflects the security of the personal information of the missing person even though the means to collect the information was legal. The journalists’ use of the information to intrude the privacy of the missing woman’s family as an ethical violation based on the code of ethics by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA National Ethics Committee, 1999). The 11th code of ethics which mentions the respect of personal grief and privacy is not extended in this case when the journalists decide to visit the family’s residence. The first point also entails the legal rights of the individual for the misuse of personal information by the media. The information provided by the husband to the police was intended in the pursuit of the lost woman. This doesn’t violate the ethics or legal obligations as the use of information is employed for the primary purpose. The information given to the media outlets was in the interest of the case at hand and was legal by the police PR office as the right to disclosure of the information for the primary purpose supersedes the violation of disclosure of personal information. According to the (Police, 2008), the procedure involved in a missing person case includes a section that highlights using the media requires the consent of the family member and providing information to the media in this case has not included the event of consent by the husband. The action of the PR to disclose the headshot and the suburb they lived in is a violation without the consent of the husband according to the procedural act for the missing person’s case in (Police, 2008). The decision to involve media in a case is always a risk as it involves invasion of privacy and other possible outcomes that can be hazardous to the individual’s family like the safety of the missing person. The use of media can be deemed inappropriate in such cases. The decision of the news director to send an interviewer to the address of the missing woman didn’t take into account the section 2.8 of the Australian Broadcasting code in (Corporation, 2008) where privacy is respected always irrespective of the content.
The case proceeds with the media setting up cameras outside the victim’s home. The right to privacy act in 1988 that uses the statutory models of the U.S indicates the intrusion of any individual or group into the personal property of another individual is liable for invasion of privacy and is liable (Commision, 1988). The act of filming the activity of the family also violates the consent section of the Australian Communications and the Media Authority. The ACMA act of 2005 by (Authority, 2005) mentions that the broadcaster or the media requires the permission of the private owner to film in the private property. The consent by the individual should be in writing or implied clearly to give access to film any event in the private property. The violation of the media Channel X is not legal and ethical as it also violates the consideration of the person in grief. The legal obligation in the act also includes that the consent is not given even when the objection isn’t clear or present. Considering the next event the reporter knocks and fails to identify herself to the husband is a violation of the code 8 by (MEAA National Ethics Committee, 1999). The same event also violates the ethical code 7 of...