Privacy

So the Times newspaper has outed another anonymous blogger, 'eh? Congratulations to them, I hope they feel proud of their achievement. Real quality journalism, there.

People will argue, I'm sure, that this story was different to mine; that because the blogger [Night Jack: blog now deleted as a result of his outing] was a policeman it was therefore "in the public interest" that his real identity should be known.

There will be others, of course, who'll applaud this judge's ruling for upholding "freedom of information" and "openness and transparency" for the "public interest" stories covered by journalists.

But those of us who have chosen to be anonymous online, have done so with good reason; so after losing my own anonymity, and experiencing first hand the ruthless behaviour of some elements of the press, I will continue to fight for the right of other bloggers to keep their identity hidden.

With the current situation in Iran, we are reminded of the need for online anonymity for those people who are, quite literally, risking their lives to get their messages out, so this landmark ruling in the British courts is extremely worrying and a threat to all of our rights to privacy.

As for the Times, well, my opinion of the paper is pretty much unprintable, but it would definitely include the word 'scumfucks'.