Few people would regard judges as high-priests of hi-tech but they do seem to have recognised something that Daniela Cicarelli and Brazilian banker Renato Malzoni have yet to appreciate.

Few people would regard judges as high-priests of hi-tech but they do seem to have recognised something that Daniela Cicarelli and Brazilian banker Renato Malzoni have yet to appreciate. 2

Few people would regard judges as high-priests of hi-tech but they do seem to have recognised something that Daniela Cicarelli and Brazilian banker Renato Malzoni have yet to appreciate.

And that is the near impossibility of trying to stop illicitly taken photos or video circulating online.

As Ms Cicarelli and Mr Malzoni have learnt to their cost, every attempt to get material removed – in this case a grainy video of the two enjoying each other’s company on a Spanish beach – only alerts a new audience to the existence of the footage.

Many judges in the UK and US do not issue injunctions to stop material being distributed because they know it is futile, says Nick Lockett, a senior partner at London firm DLL Legal and an expert on technology law.

“Instead,” he said, “they will deal with it by claims for damages.”

“That’s the only recourse they are going to have,” said Mr Lockett.

The situation is radically different than in the days when compromising images were likely only to be published in a newspaper.

Scroll to Top