The main practical argument for skewing the law to protect a blogger’s anonymity in such cases as the Night Jack one is that honourable anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers working within public service might be silenced. And the public would lose a flow of helpful insights.

True enough, in some distinguished cases at least.

Here is another undercover police blogger, from the LAPD no less, whose erudite insights into the California crime scene and its accompanying politics have enlightened National Review Online readers for some years now.

Meet self-styled Jack Dunphy. (Are all police bloggers drawn to the name Jack for some reason?)

Here he gives his own views on his possible ‘outing’:

When I wrote my first piece for [NRO] on a lark back in the summer of 2000 I had little idea I would still be at it nine years later. In that time I’ve managed to vex two mayors, two police chiefs, and any number of their respective underlings, any or all of whom would no doubt be gratified to see me unmasked and silenced once and for all.

To those who claim my use of a pseudonym is cowardly, I can only say I wouldn’t have lasted as long as I have in my “day job” if I hadn’t overcome any cowardly inclinations I may have once had. I keep the details of my assignment vague in my writing so as to safeguard my identity, but readers can be reassured I’ve spent little time behind a desk, and I hope to keep it that way until such time as I choose to retire

Thanks to another pseudymous public sector blogger at The Camp of The Saints for the link. Check out his pictures of Julie London. Phew. They don’t make ’em like that any more.