Tokens: 11
.
The
majority
attempts
,
further
,
to
claim
that
because
the
data
was
published
“
en
masse
”
and
in
“
raw
”
form
,
its
sheer
size
would
render
the
public
unable
to
engage
in
the
business
of
observing
and
monitoring
Government
activities
(
see
§
176
of
the
judgment
)
.
The
Court
adds
that
the
information
might
enable
curious
members
of
society
to
satisfy
a
sensationalist
or
even
voyeuristic
thirst
for
information
on
the
private
lives
of
others
(
see
§
177
of
the
judgment
)
.
Therefore
,
the
Court
concludes
,
the
“
sole
object
”
of
the
publication
could
not
have
been
the
disclosure
to
the
public
of
important
information
(
see
§
178
of
the
judgment
)
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O