Info
Subscribe: 
friend me on Facebook
follow me on Twitter
view my photos on Flickr
watch my videos on Qik
find me on Dopplr
join my MySpace
check my MyBlogLog
my Technorati profile
view my Tumblr
my Blogger profile
Blog RSS feed
Comments RSS feed
Recent posts
Sore
Amazing
SOTM
Possibility
Food
Title
Bale
Resolution
Transparency
Dig
Places to shop and visit
My Top 10 Toys - Women
My Top 10 Toys - Men
My Top 10 Toys - Couples
Fleshlight UK
Condoms
Durex's Ora!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
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'.
Comments
