[LINK] grog gamut
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Tue Oct 5 10:51:42 EST 2010
On 5/10/10 10:13 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> At 7:13 +1100 5/10/10, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> To me, the key question in this debate is this: what moral force should
>> be given to the blogger's custom of anonymity? On what arguments can we
>> base the assumption that anonymity is a right?
> Still catching up, sorry
> 1. Aust Privacy Charter (1994)
> 10. ANONYMOUS TRANSACTIONS
> People should have the option of not identifying themselves when
> entering transactions.
> 2. National Privacy Principles (2000)
> 8. Anonymity
> Wherever it is lawful and practicable, individuals must have the
> option of not identifying themselves when entering transactions with
> an organisation.
> 3. ALRC Recommendations (2008)
> UPP 1. Anonymity and Pseudonymity
> Wherever it is lawful and practicable in the circumstances, agencies
> and organisations must give individuals the clear option of
> interacting by either:
> (a) not identifying themselves; or
> (b) identifying themselves with a pseudonym.
> 4. Aust Govt Response (2009)
> Response: Accept
> Giving individuals the option to interact anonymously or by using a
> pseudonym is an
> effective way to protect individuals' privacy by ensuring that
> personal information is only
> collected where necessary.
> This obligation should be limited to where it is lawful and
> practicable for agencies and
> organisations to allow anonymous or pseudonymous interaction.
> 'First Stage Response to the Australian Law Reform Commission Report
> 108', Cabinet Secretary to the Australian Government, October 2009
> (p. 39)
> Well, you asked (:-)}
Many thanks, Roger. That's at least more solid ground than "I don't like
it therefore it's wrong"!
The next questions, hair-splitting:
1. Is "publication" the same as "transaction"?
2. If "Yes", then with whom does the person publishing a blog enter into
a transaction, to the extent that they can claim the same right of
anonymity as you've outlined?
More information about the Link