Here is David Allen Green aka Jack of Kent on the subtle subject of when if at all it is right to ‘out’ anonymous bloggers.

DAG of course played a leading and clever role in exposing the mendacity of Johann Hari, and has followed that up by helping show how the Times‘ pious exposing of police blogger Night Jack was done using improper means.

Thus DAG:

So if it is not an absolute right, in what circumstances is it appropriate to out a pseudonymous blogger or tweeter? It seems that the answer lies in any misuse made of their account by the pseudonymous blogger or tweeter. The breach of etiquette needs to be severe, amounting perhaps to death threats and continuing harassment (“Mabus”) or financial exploitation (“Credo”) …

Outing is not itself the imposition of any criminal or civil liability (though it makes such outcomes more likely), and nor is it attributing a person things they have not actually said and done. It is instead revealing the true identity of the person misusing their social media accounts, so as to make them accountable for their misuse.

Back in 2009 when Night Jack was being ‘outed’ I wrote this:

Imagine this scene. You are in a pub with a group of people yammering away about something, and someone you don’t know starts having a strong go at you.

That person knows who you are. You ask for his/her name to help you work out where they are coming from on the argument. The person concerns loftily says that that is none of your business – you should respond solely on the basis of the arguments being presented.

Someone whispers to you: "That guy is Fred Smith from the Politics Department of the University!"

Are you really out of order to say, "Hey, are you really Fred Smith from the University Politics Department?"? And is the said Fred Smith entitled to feel aggrieved that you have attacked his privacy by proclaiming his name?

No. And no.

Part of having professional status and responsibility is to help public discourse proceed in a civilised way between people who accept certain standards of truth and accuracy.

Or it need not be as immediate in a personal sense as this. Just say you are strolling around Speakers Corner and you see someone in a Guy Fawkes mask ranting unpleasantly against immigrants or whomever. Rant over, this person walks away. By chance a few minutes later you see said person taking off the mask and you recognise him/her for a well-known TV presenter. Should that person have any legal protection from being ‘outed’ by you eg on Twitter?

Would it make any difference if that TV presenter had not ranted against other people, but instead had proclaimed controversial policy views on, say, Climate Change, using the mask to maintain some private privacy?

What if the TV presenter had used the mask to simply to avoid being recognised in public and had waffled on about the merits of stamp-collecting?

In each case I see no reason for that person having any sort of legal remedy against being outed by someone who stumbles over his/her real identity. You have the right to wander around London or the Internet in a disguise. I have the right to say who you really are, if I find out by chance.

Things of course are different if I use unlawful means to discover your identity, eg following you home and later breaking into your house. Or use unlawful phone-hacking tricks.

Whether it’s merely mean-spirited or some sort of breach of implied Internet or other etiquette to ‘out’ someone hiding behind a disguise in any of those examples is another matter. That comes down to personal taste. As DAG wisely says:

The politeness of strangers always has a limit.