[ajb257]

Whilst a free press is important, I would argue that 'a man and a woman have been held in connection with the Gatwick Airport drone incident' would suffice. Kudos to the BBC for recognising this.

It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. Publishing their names and pictures before _even being charged_ does nothing but open potentially innocent people up to danger.

Whoever caused the Gatwick chaos needs to be brought to justice, but this is beyond reckless

[DanBC]

> It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime.

The press always say that naming people who've been arrested is an important measure against authoritarian regimes. It allows the public to know whether police powers of arrest are being misused or not.

They appear to have lost this argument, because this is in tension with people's right to privacy and rights to a fair trial by the courts not by the media.

There's some interesting info here about different approaches: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/100634...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/21/press-intrusio...

[dbdjfjrjvebd]

There is a simple way to have both. Give people the right to anonymity and also give them personally the right to wave that right. This protects people both ways.

[hopler]

There is an obvious difference between protecting people by tracking their identities in captivity vs harming people by publicly shaming them by immediately parroting the authority'sallegations.

[Carpetsmoker]

I would argue that publishing the names at all isn't particularly news-worthy. The right to privacy exists, too.

In the justice system it's the judge which rules a sentence. Years – or even decades – of public shaming doesn't seem fair to me. Committing a crime doesn't mean you're no longer dealing with a person with real feelings. Publishing names and photos strikes me as "2 minutes of hate", and not "news".

Also note that it doesn't just affect the person(s). Family members or even completely unrelated people with similar names can get threatened.

[starbeast]

Even just being in a crime reconstruction video as an actor is apparently risky. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-342183...

[closeparen]

The facts entering public record are what distinguishes "arrested" from "disappeared."

Do you want to live in a world where people are yanked off the street and not heard of for months or years, with no ability for the press/friends/family to find out about the situation, "out of respect for their privacy?"

If the police refuse to disclose whether they've grabbed someone, I'm going to assume I'm in Soviet Russia.

[mattmanser]

While it's not clear, the NYT seems to be saying that the local MP (politician) accidentally named them thinking the police had made them public, while the police would not confirm them and never named them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/world/europe/gatwick-airp...

I think it's a very British whoopsie, they're plastered over the papers and they didn't do anything.

[danso]

I think the right to privacy vs. printing public info about the actions of our police is always going to be in tension. Of course, there's no argument that innocent people should have their privacy invaded, but ideally, innocent people shouldn't have been arrested at all. The flip side is when famous/powerful people are arrested but not charged, and the public not being able to know whether they got off because strings were pulled. And there's the overarching problem of people being disappeared with the public/press having no idea whether they were arrested, and for what reason. Which has led to some absurd situations in China recently:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/world/asia/china-fan-bing...

[snuxoll]

Public information about ongoing investigations and arrests wouldn't be problematic if our society didn't have such hilariously broken views on criminal investigations and trials.

Get arrested in connection with some well talked-about crime, but were released or found innocent at trial? Doesn't matter, you're still guilty in the eyes of the public. Hell, look at jury boxes in the US - you as a defendant are assumed guilty against the spirit of our constitution, because people suck.

Either we as a society need to fix our fucked up perceptions, or we need to have a serious discussion about the right to privacy up until the point that a verdict is delivered. Unfortunately, there's no evidence that we are going to fix the former in a timely manner.

[zozbot123]

> ... It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. ...

On the contrary, the commonly-acknowledged right of habeas corpus essentially requires the government to make the fact that someone is being detained public, at least if the prisoner himself so chooses. Privacy is a red herring here - habeas corpus is about preserving basic freedoms.

[hugh-avherald]

It's risible to claim that the press published the names because they were concerned about habeas corpus.

[dahart]

What do you mean when you say habeas corpus essentially requires a detention to be made public? Habeas corpus provides for a review of the legality of a detention for the requester. How & when is any information given publicly under habeas corpus laws? What makes you think habeas corpus and privacy can’t co-exist?

[hopler]

> at least if the prisoner himself so chooses

is the missing part in most cases.

[dbdjfjrjvebd]

> at least if the prisoner himself so chooses

This is the key.

[cosmojg]

>Whoever caused the Gatwick chaos needs to be brought to justice

Absolutely, along with all of these clowns who are perpetuating the chaos.