[srtjstjsj]

> He described how the judges found Murray guilty of “jigsaw identification,” which refers to the “possibility that a person may piece together information from various sources to arrive at the identification of a protected witness.”

Why isn't every advertising/marketing data broker in jail for "jigsaw identification"?

[cstross]

In Scottish law -- and in English/Welsh law in parallel (the legal systems are different) -- there is no absolute right of free speech, like the US first amendment. Consequently, exposing the identity of witnesses (and in some cases the accused and the victim) in a criminal trial is itself a criminal offense.

Note the important bit here is in a criminal trial. Murray is going to prison because he was found guilty of actions which threatened to cause a mistrial in a criminal case, not because he was deanonymizing advertising/marketing data.

[makomk]

I'm pretty sure journalists have actually, non-hypothetically caused mistrials in criminal cases through their reporting in the UK and not been jailed for it. In fact as far as I can tell none of the journalists who did this in the UK have been jailed, at least not in the last few decades.

[lazide]

There is a reason why the 1st amendment is the 1st of the amendments - this has happened for a long time not just in England but elsewhere.

It's VERY convenient for those in power to selectively apply laws like this, and overall bad for society. But like most cases, as long as it isn't too blatant, it doesn't rise to the level of common outrage.

It got bad enough in the past to make the top of the stack of 'stuff to fix in v2' here.

The constitution though is just words on paper if people don't follow it day to day, and you can see examples of steady erosion from it (gag orders, national security orders, etc.)

[dahfizz]

I'm pretty confident that advertisers would not keep an `is_protected_witness` flag in their profiles.