http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509503.ece

blogging is “essentially a public rather than a private activity”. In the first case of its kind, Mr Justice Eady ruled that a serving police officer could not have an injunction to stop The Times identifying him as the author of the NightJack blog.

I appreciate the need for accountability of a source of information, but the protection of annonymity is far more useful so long as anyone reading an anonymous blog is prepared to accept the risk that the information is compormised by that anonymity.

I think Justice Eady has got this one (among a whole raft of his stuff) wrong, again.

🙁

I don’t think that was too much of a loony decision. Although the chap was entitled to his opinions it’s hard to argue that protecting his anonymity was in the public interest.

he is now open to disciplinary proceedings. His annonymity allowed him to provide an “insiders” view of policing and the implementation of home office policy. Inspector Gadget does much the same and there’s a raft of good bloggers out there in the public sector giving real background to those of us who dont have first hand experience – Mr Chalk (Teaching), Random Acts of Reality (Paramedic/Ambulance Driver). All of them are putting their careers at risk by providing commentary of their roles.

Readers should be allowed to draw their own conclusions on the veracity of what they read, especially if published annonymously. Afterall, journalists in the traditional media are often passing us “off the record”, “annoymously sourced”, “friends of the minister”, “a spokesman says” sides of the story.

I think the Times should hang their heads in shame for outing a news source.

so mr justice eady would rule against gordon brown’s exquisitely predictable decision to conduct the iraq war inquiry in secret. the question is not, what are the similarities between brown and ahminijedad, but are there any dissimilarities? tragically (for us) few.

john, london,

From the comments – wonder if he is a STW poster?

Perhaps the Times should, but you can’t cut it both ways, if people want to “tell it how it is” and do so in a public forum (blogging on the net) and that comes to the public’s attention then they can’t reasonably expect to remain anonymous for long

blogs arnt public.
the information on them is public.

having SAID THAT.

if i were to write a blog, and didnt want anyone to know it was me who wrote it, especially if the Times would actually give two hoots, i would take a couple of VERY simple measures to make sure they couldnt tell it was me who wrote it!
its not rocket science!
if you havent bothered to make the effort, you havent got a leg to stand on really

While I struggle to see what is gained by naming him from The Times’ point of view, this appearsd to me to be correct:

“I do not accept that it is part of the court’s function to protect police officers who are, or think they may be, acting in breach of police discipline regulations from coming to the attention of their superiors.”

Is he, in any meaningful sense, “whistleblowing”? or is he just “sounding off” and providing “commentary”?

While I struggle to see what is gained by naming him from The Times’ point of view

It’s news, of a sort, they are equally a news paper, of a sort…there’s a certain symmetry.

even if he isnt whistleblowing surely having an open dialogue with the public might be considered a good thing for a public service for managing trust?

There’s no other medium by which he can give commentary without compromising himself.

Take for example the Nottingham tazering.

Im pretty happy that the restraint techniques and the methods used followed protocol. When the inquiry is completed, who would you rather hear say the same thing: an official Police spokesman saying “nothing to see hear, move along” or a frontline officer explaning, off the record and annonymously, how such techniques are used, in what circumstances and why they are not overtly brutal despite what it might look like on a dodgy phone video? Much of the Inspector Gadget commentary is in that style.

We have had the benefit of a few STW coppers giving us their insight, and for that Im grateful – I have far more faith in what they have to say from the shop floor than what a home office/police official has to say on the matter.

Random Acts of Reality

That guy isn’t anonymous though is he?

http://www.b3ta.com/interview/tomreynolds/

Difficult one to call really, it depends on what the person is blogging about. Everyone has to consider that they might be accountable for information or statements that they publish, and that they could be on the receiving end of some pretty nasty treatment as a consequence – but then if they believe in it they’ll probably publish and be damned.

In this case the judge seems to have thought that he was mouthing off rather than whistle-blowing. I haven’t read the guys blog but from the snippets that are still up on the web I would have to agree. There’s definitely an overtone of “I don’t like you so I’m going to find against you” – but it doesn’t mean that he was wrong…

Quite shameful behaviour from the Times. If the Times prints a story from a “source” in the paper then that’s in the public domain but they know that they will never have to reveal their sources.

The Times are still responsible for that information though and they know that they will making one of those grovelly statements in open court, not to mention paying a fat legal bill, if they can’t back it up.

Seems the most likely charge would be bringing the service into disrepute.

Having read his blog for a long time, I’d say that the only people bringing the police service into disrepute was the bosses!