http://nightjack.wordpress.com/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8103731.stm

Then again should we be surprised after he's made posts such as this - ">http://nightjack.wordpress.com/&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk"> http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:z0e2kGWBmkMJ:nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/secrets-and-lies/+http://nightjack.wordpress.com/&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Post attached in Word file for when google reindexes as it ain't on the wayback machine...

lol yeah good one BBC (british broadcasting crap)... I like the anonymous news article.

"seemingly, no more reason other than that he critiscised the government" well UK government is failure anyway, so its no surprise some people are speaking out from within its various departments.. just not enough!  The last thing they want is insiders to screw things up by being honest with the public on various issues.. oh noes don't wake them up

This was not true state intervention, this no different to any other company telling its employees to stop blogging. If he does get canned expect to see his blog back online.

ManipUni said:

How did the paper get his personal information?

I guess he signed non-disclosure agreement for something.

ManipUni said:

How did the paper get his personal information?

Investigative reporting

As w3bbo said this has nothing to do with the government at all, the news paper's interest was piqued for whatever reason, and they wanted to reveal his name. He sued to stop them. And lost.

Government didn't drive it, government didn't care, and the ruling does make sense. If you start pinning up manifestos on church doors you have no expectation to privacy, why is blogging different?

blowdart said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

Investigative reporting

As w3bbo said this has nothing to do with the government at all, the news paper's interest was piqued for whatever reason, and they wanted to reveal his name. He sued to stop them. And lost.

Government didn't drive it, government didn't care, and the ruling does make sense. If you start pinning up manifestos on church doors you have no expectation to privacy, why is blogging different?

I am just glad to know how the incident which happens in UK relates to China?

Zhou Yong

footballism said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

I am just glad to know how the incident which happens in UK relates to China?

Zhou Yong

Because people like to use China as an example of "one of those bad states." Which is fairly hypocritical given how the UK has arguably a greater surveillance society and our own great firewall. We also cannot take photos in undisclosed locations, can be arrest for nothing, and certain information (or collections of information) are illegal to own. Like for example Science books if you happen to be from the Middle East.

ManipUni said:

footballism said:

*snip*

Because people like to use China as an example of "one of those bad states." Which is fairly hypocritical given how the UK has arguably a greater surveillance society and our own great firewall. We also cannot take photos in undisclosed locations, can be arrest for nothing, and certain information (or collections of information) are illegal to own. Like for example Science books if you happen to be from the Middle East.

 

Then your country should take the lion's share of the "one of those bad states" honor as while.

Zhou Yong

footballism said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

Then your country should take the lion's share of the "one of those bad states" honor as while.

Zhou Yong

You're right. But the Western world's arrogance won't allow it.

ManipUni said:

footballism said:

*snip*

Because people like to use China as an example of "one of those bad states." Which is fairly hypocritical given how the UK has arguably a greater surveillance society and our own great firewall. We also cannot take photos in undisclosed locations, can be arrest for nothing, and certain information (or collections of information) are illegal to own. Like for example Science books if you happen to be from the Middle East.

 

The UK does not have anything like the Chinese firewall. It's a voluntary system that applies only to consumer-level ISPs and the cleanfeed list is managed by an NGO.

However, I am disappointed that the g'ment is actively trying to force all ISPs to implement the filter system.

Question: when does a consumer ISP end and a bandwidth provider begin?

W3bbo said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

The UK does not have anything like the Chinese firewall. It's a voluntary system that applies only to consumer-level ISPs and the cleanfeed list is managed by an NGO.

However, I am disappointed that the g'ment is actively trying to force all ISPs to implement the filter system.

Question: when does a consumer ISP end and a bandwidth provider begin?

And it's a NGO with no responsibility to report to anyone on effectiveness or indeed what they're blocking - the cleanfeed list is secret. And if you don't think that the government can influence them, well, I have some land I'd like to sell you.

And the IWF's charity status is dubious at best considering they get government funding.

W3bbo said:

He was outed by a newspaper and the courts ruled he had no reasonable expectation of privacy, he was then forced to take the blog down by his employer (the Met) or else he would presumably lose his job.

This was not true state intervention, this no different to any other company telling its employees to stop blogging. If he does get canned expect to see his blog back online.

oh dear... this post made me think of this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7783640.stm

I do appologise if I caused any offence though, the post was not meant to be an attack on China, but on the UK Government/police force.

(EDIT: looks like I got confused here... that was in reply footballism's post)

@ W3bboSo it's reasonable for an employer to require employees not to have an opinion? And I'd be interested to know how the newspaper found out his details. If, for instance, they attained his IP address for Wordpress and then contacted the owner ISP to find out who it belonged to does that not constitute a breach of privacy (and surely it must contravene the data protection act too?)?

I'd also argue that psuedo-anonimity is a vital feature of the internet and all "free" countries should institute laws to protect those who don't know how to truly make themselves anonymous online from those who seek to uncover them.  It seems the reason that this blog was taken down was because the police force didn't like it/it reflected badly on them. As a memeber of the public that funds the said force (I don't actually live in that region, but it's going to be fairly congruent across all regions) do I not have a right to know if my money is being well spent. And if the force is meant to be there for my benefit is it not right that I am able to see if it is not working for my benefit?

@blowdart - If it has nothing to do with the government then why does the article specificaly mention that he criticised government ministers?

GoddersUK said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

oh dear... this post made me think of this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7783640.stm

I do appologise if I caused any offence though, the post was not meant to be an attack on China, but on the UK Government/police force.

(EDIT: looks like I got confused here... that was in reply footballism's post)

@ W3bboSo it's reasonable for an employer to require employees not to have an opinion? And I'd be interested to know how the newspaper found out his details. If, for instance, they attained his IP address for Wordpress and then contacted the owner ISP to find out who it belonged to does that not constitute a breach of privacy (and surely it must contravene the data protection act too?)?

I'd also argue that psuedo-anonimity is a vital feature of the internet and all "free" countries should institute laws to protect those who don't know how to truly make themselves anonymous online from those who seek to uncover them.  It seems the reason that this blog was taken down was because the police force didn't like it/it reflected badly on them. As a memeber of the public that funds the said force (I don't actually live in that region, but it's going to be fairly congruent across all regions) do I not have a right to know if my money is being well spent. And if the force is meant to be there for my benefit is it not right that I am able to see if it is not working for my benefit?

@blowdart - If it has nothing to do with the government then why does the article specificaly mention that he criticised government ministers?

Because that's what he did? Because that was his content? Because that's what piqued the interest of the newspapers in the first place?

Or are you suggesting the government in fact asked the Times to investigate it and discover his name?

blowdart said:

GoddersUK said:

*snip*

Because that's what he did? Because that was his content? Because that's what piqued the interest of the newspapers in the first place?

Or are you suggesting the government in fact asked the Times to investigate it and discover his name?

Not neseceraly, but there wasn't really any good reason that I can see for the police to shut him down, unless their superiors deemed it nesecary. And if you follow the command chain up you end up with the government as the most superior of their superiors...

So they may not have had him uncovered but they undoubtedly took advantage of it once it had happened.

GoddersUK said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

Not neseceraly, but there wasn't really any good reason that I can see for the police to shut him down, unless their superiors deemed it nesecary. And if you follow the command chain up you end up with the government as the most superior of their superiors...

So they may not have had him uncovered but they undoubtedly took advantage of it once it had happened.

Of course they did. There's this little thing called a code of conduct that police officers need to adhere to. And he broke it.

Consider the Time's justification;

“revealing confidential details about cases, some involving sex offences against children, that could be traced back to genuine prosecutions” as well as offering “advice to people who found themselves the subject of a police investigation.”

So what are his employers supposed to do here? Ignore it? He wasn't whistleblowing, where anonymity would be preserved.

blowdart said:

GoddersUK said:

*snip*

Of course they did. There's this little thing called a code of conduct that police officers need to adhere to. And he broke it.

Consider the Time's justification;

“revealing confidential details about cases, some involving sex offences against children, that could be traced back to genuine prosecutions” as well as offering “advice to people who found themselves the subject of a police investigation.”

So what are his employers supposed to do here? Ignore it? He wasn't whistleblowing, where anonymity would be preserved.

If in the first case he did reveal personally identifiable information about people he dealt with in his job then that is out of order.

But what was so wrong about the offering advice to people subject to a police investigation? By that logic should we lock up all lawyers too?

GoddersUK said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

If in the first case he did reveal personally identifiable information about people he dealt with in his job then that is out of order.

But what was so wrong about the offering advice to people subject to a police investigation? By that logic should we lock up all lawyers too?

Yes. We should.

ManipUni said:

GoddersUK said:

*snip*

Yes. We should.

Police and Fire -women in the USA can't show their booobs in magazines and keep their jobs -- I bet they do in China !