As the news flies around that a Premiership star has been named on social media site Twitter after a court ordered that their identity should be protected, the debate turns to our privacy laws and how they should be enforced on social media.
The game (media and news) has now changed it and it’s important (no matter who you are) to understand what people are saying and where they’re going to say it.
A comparison here in this case could be that the laws on CDs and DVDs are now changing, to reflect today’s digital world.
At the moment if you own content as a DVD or Cd the fact is you can’t legally rip a DVD to digital media- most argue this is just outdated, you could argue that there is a comparison to be made for this situation.
Super injunctions simply don’t work in today’s digital information stream. The stream and exchange of information is anonymous, free, fast and global.
This morning, news surfaced that a Scottish newspaper had identified the premiership star, a country within the Uk that they argue is not covered by the English court ordered super-injunctions.
With Twitter effectively now being sued and asked to handover details of the authors of the Tweets, should it be Twitters job to moderate a communication service, a service that has had such massive effects, good and bad? Such as freeing political activists from arrest and breaking news to the world during events like the Hudson plane crash.
It actually puts this situation right into context, people will talk, not for commercial gain or to sell papers, just because they can. And this is exactly what has happened in this case. With the identity of CTB (the way the court are referring to the individual) being mentioned every 1 second this morning.
It’s important that people understand this, the game has changed, and those that play in it (or even those that don’t), have to understand the rules and the risks.