The twist here is that the person in question, Andrew Marr, is a senior journalist (I'm not sure if he still is, but he used to be the BBC's own Political Editor) and here he was using one of these super injunctions to maintain his own privacy.
The article refers to comments by Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye magazine and a "team captain" on the very popular BBC satirical news quiz show, Have I Got News For You. Hislop referred to Marr's use of a super injunction as "a touch hypocritical" using classic British understatement to describe the situation.
This would be one solution, for sure. But what I can't get my head around, is how they would plan to handle the possibility that someone could pass the information to a friend outside Canadian jurisdiction who might then publish the information.
Or maybe it is not what the law says that they are concerned about, merely that here is a law so it has to be enforced. Wonder how many other outdated laws are on the books that they do not enforce, though.
I felt obliged to log in and comment simply to say that equating News of the World journalists with professionals, to my mind, amounts to flattery in the extreme, but we can let that go considering the suggestion doesn't undermine your point, Mike!
First, isn't much of what we are struggling with in these discussions evidence of the fact that, although laws should be decided jointly, the fact is that they are actually decided by a very small minority (legislators) influenced by powerful vested interests.
Second, I suspect the sentiments that give rise to your comment that "certainly my opinion is not going to do it..." are very much the reason most "normal" people feel somewhat powerless to effect change.
I can't decide whether this appears to herald a new era of Luddism (and a pretty extreme form of it at that) or of heightened paranoia. Either way, if you want to fear the unknown like this, you will end up banning an incredibly long list of potential threats. Taken ad absurdum, there is really very little among the most mundane of objects which could not in some way be used to make mischief.
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" seems particularly apposite here.
As I have heard it noted before, a telephone is really a very rude device. It's ring is effectively the caller shouting "Here I am, give me your immediate attention!" Yes, one can ignore the ring, or silence it, but that is not always easy to do. For me, I start wondering whether I have ignored something really important.
Things are mitigated somewhat with caller ID of course, so one can choose, based on caller, whether to answer or not. But ultimately, more modern methods of communication generally leave open the option to give them attention now or later on. If someone leaves a voicemail, phones offer that too, but so many people simply hang up when they hear the voicemail prompt that I rarely have the option available to me.
I am in my late forties and identify wholeheartedly with the sentiment. To Yogi, who commented about women, I have to say that even my wife has commented to me that she rarely actually calls anyone and few people call her these days. Most of our communication, with friends, family or for work, is done using other electronic means (email, chat, instant messaging or even forum posts).
I had to laugh. A quick scan of the comments on that blog only turned up one that I could spot supporting Microsoft. Someone calling himself QA trying to point out that this is how the patent system works. It's all beyond laughable and one has to hope that this backfiring PR effort might give Microsoft pause for thought.
I particularly liked where one commenter highlighted a comment that MS is doing this for its customers and asked that he (as a customer) not be included.
If this were not so incredibly sad, it would be hilarious. Who can really take big companies like this seriously when they act like petulant children?
What an incredibly ignorant response from this guy. Obviously people should keep their personal data personal, but an email address is exactly the sort of thing people absolutely need to share. How else will anybody else be able to email them if they didn't pass that out. And knowing the dates someone is planning to travel is hardly secret personal information either. There are a host of reasons someone would get to know this.
Ryanair are only compounding their image as a company with no concern or respect for their customers. Hardly a winning approach to doing business!
These eggs are available all over Europe and yet I thought the EU was the "nanny state" to end them all. Apparently the US is even worse. Or perhaps the issue is that they are just not made in the good old US of A. Either way, this is just one more story in the long line of recent stories that makes one wonder what the heck is going on in the US.
I don't see why this is an issue. In high profile murder trials millions, rather than thousands, are aware of the name of the accused. This has always been the case, in the UK as much as anywhere else (not that this is a UK story, mind). I don't know why people suddenly think differently.
I am also not aware that the UK does suppress the names of the accused in trials, except where the accused is a minor. Mind you I have been away for over 7 years, so perhaps Labour changed this while they were in government.
"...in what world did News Corp. think this was a smart move?"
Clearly in that world inhabited by the likes of the record labels, movie studios, TV companies and newspapers, in which they get paid piles of money over and over and over again and consumers smile happily as they fork out anything that hasn't been extracted from their pockets in tax to these "content providers".