When does the abuse of the undertaking of anonymity given by blogs become a problem that affects and possibly compromises the anonymity of all other bloggers? What does BU do in cases like that? These are questions that BU has had to struggle with mightily in the past days and weeks.

BU has in the past stated that it will protect the identity of bloggers and their e-mail addresses etc. Come what may and we hold good to that. We do not gratuitously pass on bloggers’ information to anyone! Instead, we do the cyber equivalent of shredding such information so that it cannot fall into the wrong hands.

BUT……….We now put the question to the BU family: Should BU shield bloggers from the consequences of allegedly criminal acts, especially if those acts are arguable even against BU, and pose a threat to the anonymity of the BU family and its bona fide bloggers who anonymously wish to air their opinions on matters of public interest?

Here is the case in question and we ask the BU family to weigh in with their opinions.

On the 13 August 2010 BU received by e-mail a submission that, as it turned out subsequently, falsely and fraudulently purported to come to us from Chris McHale. As soon as Mr McHale advised that he was not the blogger in question and that his identity had been “borrowed”, BU withdrew the article and issued a retraction (submission by the real Mchale) and an apology, giving it the same (and actually greater) prominence than accorded the offensive article.

Whoever the blog contributor actually was, they went to some lengths to fraudulently take over the identity of Mr McHale in a manner that had the potential to damage BU and pose a threat to the BU family.

Mr McHale, while graciously accepting that BU’s acts were proper and commensurate, wrote to BU alleging, inter alia, that he was of the opinion that the false blogger had in fact committed a criminal offence and asking BU to provide him with the blogger’s details.

BU’s opinion is that if John Doe writes to BU giving a moniker or calling himself/herself “Anonymous”, because he/she has not tried to assume the identity of someone else, BU is honour-bound to (and WILL) refuse absolutely to give up that blogger, no matter the opinion expressed by them. HOWEVER, what happens when someone goes to extraordinary lengths to pretend that they are someone else? And we don’t mean by use of the same moniker, but by the usurpation of a real person’s name with details that make that identity appear beyond question?

Mr McHale has graciously agreed that BU has acted correctly in withdrawing the blog and issuing a full and unconditional apology in accordance with accepted legal practices. Mr McHale is concerned, as is BU, that the anonymity of social commentators be protected in accordance with international accords.

BU deleted (as stated) all details of bloggers and has no connectable information on the perpetrator of what has to be seen as a direct threat to BU and the family. Indeed, so that bloggers are protected, BU is in the habit of erasing any information that might later, in the wrong hands, be used to identify bona fide bloggers. So, all BU has is a print out that is not identifiable.

So, now BU asks the BU family, especially our legal friends, to weigh in and give us their opinions.