Slashdot Mirror
British Court Rules Against Blogger Anonymity
An anonymous reader writes "In a dangerous judgment for British bloggers and whistleblowers, a British court has ruled (absurdly) that because blogging itself is a public activity, bloggers have 'no reasonable expectation of privacy' regarding their identities, and newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means. A British police detective who recently won the Orwell Prize for his excellent political writing used his blog to write highly critical accounts of police activities and unethical behavior, making very powerful enemies in the process. A well-funded newspaper with powerful connections quickly heard of his blog and decided it was absolutely vital to expose his identity using an investigative journalist. Like any good newspaper, the blogger anonymized the people and the locations in all the cases he discussed on his blog, but the newspaper alleges these were not sufficiently anonymized and complains that they could work out the identities, though British newspapers don't complain that they are allowed to publish the identities of men who are falsely accused of rape and cleared in court. The newspaper also helpfully contacted the blogger's employer, and his job is now threatened."
The blog is no longer accessible http://nightjack.wordpress.com/ and can not be reached via http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/
newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means.
So foul is fair and illegal is legal? Welcome to the 21st century, kids.
I can see why they should be able to out someone if they got the identity by subtrefuge, but if the identity is gained through illagel means, that's different. Or should be, at least.
Free Martian Whores!
Britain is the world's capital of libel tourism. Because of that, the ubiquitous CCTV coverage, and the RIP act, it's on my list of places to never visit, along with, say, the Congo.
Actually, no, the government didn't "stay out of it". That's the problem in this case, you see. He upset lots of very senior politicians with his acerbic writing. Two of them in particular - including one extremely wealthy guy who serves in a senior role in the government - were so pissed off about it, they wanted to know who the author was and silence him. They pulled strings with their great friend(s) at the very well-funded British newspaper empire who were persuaded it was so important, urgent and "in the public interest anyway" that immediately approval was given to throw a large part of that financial year's remaining contingency account funds at an investigative journalism team with orders to "get answers 'yesterday'". This case is all about people in positions of power abusing their positions by asking friends in other positions of power to do a little backscratching for them. Call it the old boys' network. It's an absolute disgrace that this sort of thing is still going on and it is an affront to democracy. The timing is very suspicious, as the blogger was just about to blog about a corruption case, not yet exposed, involving some very senior politicians. What a coincidence his blog stopped just then. Maybe time for somebody else should take up the cudgel... Anon for a damn good reason.
I'm not sure if you are aware of what a "free press" is, but that means they are generally allowed to say what they want as long as it is not libelous. One of the only constraints regarding publishing a person's name is that, if they are not public figures, nor done something to get into the public record, they don't get their name published.
Since this guy was a public figure, and was doing things to get himself in the public record, he is not protected. So the court got it right.
What you seem to be saying is that, if I stand on a street corner spouting whatever political drivel I feel like, and I don't put my name on a placard in front of me, NO ONE is allowed to say who I am? So is someone is listening to me and says "Hey, who is this guy?" and someone else says "That's R2.0 - I recognize him from the same drivel on Slashdot", I can sue?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Whichever way this was ruled the paper could release the identity of the blogger - if they ruled against allowing publication of identity then the paper could just release the identity in an anonymous blog and with the new restriction in place noone could release the papers identity either... a catch 22.
Whistleblowers are usually protected by the law, and get support from the press and friendly politicians into the bargain.
This guys breached his employment contract and doesn't want to take the consequences. Incidentally, all he got was a reprimand. AND he wrote an article (therefore got paid) for the very same publication that outed him!
I piss off bigots.
The parent has been modded "flaimbait", and perhaps it is, but it is also not far from the truth. Limmited privacy laws, CCTV everywhere, GB is the "poster child" for government intrusivness.
arbitrary searches of innocent people
Don't be so smug if you're from the U.S.A., though. There is legislation under consideration that would outlaw anonymous presence on the internet AT ALL in this country ... EVERY web address and identity would have to be registered with the government. Hasn't passed yet, but it's being considered.
How about the truth, then?
"In an encouraging move affirming freedom of the press in Britain, a British judge has ruled against newspaper censorship, saying that a newspaper has the right to publish the name of a blogger if they are able to find it."
Oh, wait. That's the same as the anti-spin to TFA. My bad.
The only thing worse, historically, than newspapers ferreting out and publishing information is the legal ability of a government to prevent that. Yes, it's bad for this particular whistle blower. But not as bad as direct censorship.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.