[krstf13]

The article is misleading, it’s not what the law says. The law specifically forbids the use of personally identifiable data (ie judges and clerks name) to conduct statistical analysis predictions. This seems to be in line with the privacy laws that require prior consent to allow this kind of private data processing (by private I specifically mean related to identifiable individuals)

[Isinlor]

When judges are giving orders they are not acting as private individuals, but as officials of the state. They have no right to not be associated with the decisions they are making.

Think about politicians: "You have no right to use my personally identifiable data to accuse me of bribery!"

If you are acting officially on behalf of the state I have the moral right, whether the law says so or not, to scrutinize your decisions.

[x220]

The government doesn't have the right to privacy. If you work for the government, people should have the right to know your name and what choices you made in an official capacity. France is practicing the opposite of transparency.

[Wowfunhappy]

> The government doesn't have the right to privacy.

France clearly disagrees.

I think that's misguided on France's part, but it's not "censorship" per se.

[brokenmachine]

So they can publish in a deidentified fashion?