The Italian Data Protection Authority intervened urgently to order several media outlets to cease processing the data of an eleven-year-old minor, whose images and personal information had been disseminated following his participation in riots, recalling the primacy of children's right to privacy over the right of the press.

Facts and context

The Italian data protection authority issued an emergency decision against two television channels and four online press outlets, ordering a provisional limitation on the processing of data relating to an eleven-year-old minor involved in riots in Milan.

The authority intervened urgently on its own initiative following the dissemination by these media of images and personal information enabling the identification of a minor involved in recent demonstrations.

Reasons for the decision

• Obligation to guarantee the primacy of the minor's right to privacy over the right of the press: The authority found that the television services and online articles had disseminated images, age, neighborhood, and school attended by the minor. It considered that these elements made the child identifiable, which could have serious repercussions on his development. The Authority recalled that the minor's right to privacy systematically prevails over the right to report, regardless of the role played by the child in the reported facts, and that the public interest in information could be satisfied without exposing the minors concerned.

Decision of the authority

Consequently, the authority imposed a provisional limitation on the processing of the personal data and images of the minor concerned against the six media outlets.

Furthermore, the authority ordered the data controllers to communicate to it, within three days, the measures taken to comply with its decision.

Lessons learned

This decision recalls that:

• The right to privacy of a minor absolutely prevails over the right of the press and freedom of information, regardless of the role or involvement of the minor in the reported events.
• The satisfaction of the public interest in information cannot justify the dissemination of elements enabling the identification of a minor; it is imperative to report facts without exposing the children concerned.
• The dissemination of a set of information (such as age, neighborhood, school), even without mentioning the name, may be sufficient to make a minor identifiable and constitutes unlawful data processing.