[DanBC]

> It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime.

The press always say that naming people who've been arrested is an important measure against authoritarian regimes. It allows the public to know whether police powers of arrest are being misused or not.

They appear to have lost this argument, because this is in tension with people's right to privacy and rights to a fair trial by the courts not by the media.

There's some interesting info here about different approaches: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/100634...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/21/press-intrusio...

[dbdjfjrjvebd]

There is a simple way to have both. Give people the right to anonymity and also give them personally the right to wave that right. This protects people both ways.

[vertexFarm]

This plan isn't thought through to its conclusion. If a government is willing to illegally detail political dissidents, etc. they will certainly not mind lying about that dissident's decision for anonymity.

Not like the KGB of old would tell a reporter the truth when they ask if the nameless detained man in a gulag somewhere requested his name be reported and let them blow open the fact that the government is arresting non-criminals for political purposes. I mean in that situation, Soviets already knew--it's not a perfect analogy. They'll just say he exercised his right to privacy.

It only works if the announcement of identity is public by default, unfortunately. Neither option is great at all, but I don't think I'm qualified to come up with a better plan.

[gruez]

>This protects people both ways.

Not really. If the cops want to drag you off and detain you secretly for indefinite amount of time (what the law is trying to prevent), then all they have to do is charge you with some embarrassing crime like "sex with underage minor", to force you to waive that right.

[YawningAngel]

This doesn't work in systems which punish trumped-up charges, which any reasonable system clearly should.

[hopler]

There is an obvious difference between protecting people by tracking their identities in captivity vs harming people by publicly shaming them by immediately parroting the authority'sallegations.

[caminante]

You're missing his point.

Your distinction still places the trust in the discretion of the police/press. If they don't disclose the name, then it's harder for character witnesses to come forward (e.g. the couple's neighbors in this case).

[TheOtherHobbes]

I don't think it works like that. Character witnesses are organised in private by a defence lawyer, who - of course - knows the identities of the accused. Not by a public announcement in the press.

Front page headlines along the lines of "The police believe these people are criminals who caused huge inconvenience and suffering to hundreds of thousands of people - would someone like to say a good work about them?" probably aren't the best way to guarantee a fair trial.

[caminante]

> Front page headlines [...] probably aren't the best way to guarantee a fair trial.

Again, this sub-thread's premise is that "naming people who've been arrested is an important measure against authoritarian regimes."

The point is, you wouldn't get a "fair trial" in an authoritarian society. Knowing whether you're in one is tough (It could be as low-level as local law enforcement.) Given these two points, it's a values-based argument that more information is better. That's all.

Of course, it's horrible when someone gets wrongfully accused. I don't know where the sweet spot is. I'm outsourcing much of my trust to other citizens.