Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

What a difference a decade makes

I was probably the first blogger to challenge the power of NZ courts to suppress the names of those who appeared before them in the internet age.

Back in 2000 (almost exactly a decade ago) I published this column in which I effectively "outed" the rich American who had obtained name suppression when convicted of drug charges before an NZ court.

Of course when I did this I was very confident that my effective breach of the suppression order would not be prosecuted.

Remember, this was 10 years ago and the Net still maintained its "nerd" status. Not only that but the law itself was struggling to come to grips with the way this new technology was creating challenges to its authority.

This week however, a blogger did appear before the courts, charged with breaching suppression orders, and he's an idiot.

The world in 2010 is a far different place to the world of 2000.

The law is now aware of and capable of dealing with the Net and those who (mis)use it.

And Cameron Slater from Whale Oil is is about to find this out in a rather expensive way.

Now I don't know Cameron; never met him; never even exchanged emails as far as I can recall - but I really think, in light of recent events, that he's a bit of a dim-bulb.

I've engaged in my own fair share of "traffic-boosting" stunts over the years, but I've always tried to be very careful to "play it safe" (okay, cruise missile excepted ;-)

If Cameron thinks he's going to get away with his alleged indirect naming of those whose identities were suppressed by they court then he's a sandwich short of a picnic I'm afraid.

The authorities have just been waiting to make an example of some jumped-up blogger, to teach the rest of us a lesson and thus make it clear that we're no longer entitled to act above the law.

Apparently the Whale Oil blog has been getting record traffic since the charges were laid -- but that's nothing to get to excited about. There's still no easy way to turn that traffic into the revenues Cameron will need to pay his fines.

Then there's the issue of justice.

Cameron may be right when he asserts that "about one per cent of cases deserve name suppression, and that's those involving sex crimes against minors, so that the victims are not identified" but right now, that's not his determination to make. We have a justice system and legislators whose job it is to decide just how and when name-suppression ought to be applied. If (like many of us), Cameron doesn't like that then there are procedures available which allow us to instigate changes to such laws.

However, the biggest shock may come when Cameron attempts the defence that "my server is located in the USA". Sorry, but the prospect of that being a viable defence has long since been rendered null and void.

If I were to have a US printer print up a brochure containing a name and the crime of someone whose identity was suppressed by the courts then hand those brochures out on a street in downtown Auckland, I'd still be guilty of breaching the order. It simply doesn't matter where the stuff is printed or where your webserver is located -- the fact is that Cameron has published that information in a form that is accessible from New Zealand.

Now I actually agree with Cameron that our suppression laws are silly and far too many people gain permanent name suppression simply because of "who" they are.

To my mind, if some famous person commits a crime then they do so in the full knowledge that, as a public figure, they risk their reputation and the effect that it might have on their career. For the courts to offer them special dispensation is stupid.

This is no different to saying to a drunk driver -- oh, we won't fine/imprison you for killing that nice lady and her children, you were drunk at the time so it wasn't your fault therefore it would be unfair to punish you.

But Cameron, although I agree with your position on name suppression, I think you're thick as two short planks when it comes to doing something about it.

The way you've done this makes it appear as if you simply took the gamble that you could drum up a little more traffic to your blog without too much risk of suffering a penalty. Bad judgment mate.

What do Aardvark readers think?

Is it fair that I "got away with it" back on 2000 but Cameron gets pinged for doing the same thing -- or perhaps doing even less (since his references were somewhat more obscure than my blatant link)?

Should Cameron really have had a sit down and a cup of tea before embarking on this folly or has he done all bloggers a favour by effectively allowing the courts to make an example of him?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font