Earlier today, Mr Justice Eady  ruled that the author of the NightJack blog could not stay anonymous. This will probably mean nothing to most people, but could be a significant case law ruling when it coming to blogging and, potentially, whistleblowing. If you've never heard of NightJack, he's a policeman who blogged anonymously and candidly about his job. It was an eye-opener and a great read that made you emphasise with hiss job. The blog won an Orwell Award for the quality of it's writing.
That blog is no more and the author has been disciplined after The Times 'outed' NightJack. One of their reporters worked out the bloggers identity, the blogger took out an injunction, the Times challenged that injunction and today's ruling is the end result. Bloggers cannot expect anonymity.
The Times says of the ruling: "Today newspaper lawyers were celebrating one of the rarer Eady rulings in their favour." I'd beg to differ. It leaves me with a slightly sick feeling in my stomach and a slightly bitter taste in the mouth.
Let's go, if I may, on a slight tangent before getting back to the case in hand. Generally speaking, for both blogging an the internet, I think moving away from anonymity is a good thing. We're moving to an era, especially with social media, where identity is more open and the internet is all the better for it. It cuts down on trolling for a start.
I'm also a big fan of openness and accountability. If somebody asked me about starting a blog, I'd suggest they do it under their own name, or at least made it clear who they were. It clears up any misunderstandings from the off - setting out your stall so people know who you are.
Let's also be clear, when we're talking about anonymity, we're not talking about identities created around blogging here. NightJack was very different to the likes of Devil's Kitchen, Chicken Yoghurt, Doctor Vee, Bloggerheads or many of the other well-known bloggers. They have their online identity which sites alongside their real name. Anybody can find out who they are in a matter of seconds - their pen names are their blogging personas.
Moving onto the judgement, I can see why Mr Justice Eady came to his eventual judgement. It's still a bit of a mess but can be fitted into the letter of the law, by and large (although, and this is one of the wonders of the vagueries of the English legal system, you could easily have seen him ruling the other way).
But the judgement: the reasoning, the logic and the whole lead-up to this just doesn't feel right. As Paul Bradshaw says:
"... this is a ruling that has enormous implications for whistleblowers and people blogging ‘on the ground’. That’s someone else’s ‘public interest’.
And that last element is the saddest for me."
Let's leave aside the judgement itself for a minute (the judge can only really rule what's in front of him) and look to The Times and their role in unmasking NightJack. This is the part that leaves me uneasiest of all.
Their journalist pieced together who NightJack was and then went to publish. And the question I have is why? 
NightJack is a public servant, true, but in the grand scheme of things he really isn't that important. Certainly, going to all this effort to unmask him seems a little, well, excessive.
He's a blogger. A well-read blogger, yes, and an award-winning one. But is it really in the public's interest, as opposed to being merely interesting to the public, to know who he is? If he were a Chief Constable, a high-ranking BBC employee, an MP or a civil servant, I could understand this. But a Detective Constable in Lancashire? It's hardly a high-level scoop is it? Or, indeed, a high-profile and significant victory for openness, as they portray the judgement.
[The other thing that sits uneasy with me here is The Times have previous in this area when they unmasked Girl With A One Track Mind for no other reason, seemingly, than they could. That, more than NightJack, seemed like a particularly pointless act for the sake of a story].
Justin McKeating makes a very good point with regard to The Times' victory today: that of anonymous sources for journalists. They may not be bloggers, but you can see where Justin's coming from - the principle is very similar (and apologies for copying a large chunk of his text here, but it helps place his argument in context:
Would I be wrong in thinking that anonymous sources, insiders and friends are conducting the business of democracy in the media with the willing collusion of journalists? If nothing else, it’s in direct contravention of the ‘different type of politics’ promised to us by Gordon Brown – a politics promising a ‘more open and honest dialogue‘.
It would seem to me that some kind of public interest challenge in the courts is in order. Imagine the story in The Times…
Thousands of ’sources’, ‘insiders’ and ‘friends’ churn out opinions daily — secure in the protection afforded to them by the cloak of anonymity lent to them by obsequious journalists.
From today, however, they can no longer be sure that their identity can be kept secret, after a landmark ruling by Mr Justice Eady.
The judge, who is known for establishing case law with his judgments on privacy, has struck a blow in favour of openness, ruling that democracy is “essentially a public rather than a private activity”.
What could be more in the public interest than that?
This comes back to Paul Bradshaw's earlier point about whistleblowers and 'on the ground' bloggers.
When it comes to the majority of bloggers, it probably doesn't matter too much whether they're anonymous or not. It'd be nice if we knew who they were, as I said earlier, but, at the end of the day, most of the time it's not really a huge issue.
But those bloggers who write detailed and informative posts about their profession are much rarer and are worth treasuring. Blogs like NightJack, PC Bloggs, Dr Crippen and The Magistrate's Blogs are essential reads.
They are candid and often eye-opening and enables you to get a better idea of the problems facing our police force, judiciary and NHS. They lift the lid, often a very small lid, on the inner workings of these professions. If anything, they give the public a remarkable insight into the inner workings. And to my mind, this is largely a good thing, as Tom Reynolds points out:
"What bloggers do is humanise and explain their section of the world - public sector bodies do well to have bloggers writing within them, after all these are the people who careabout what they do, about what improvements should be made and about where the faults come from. They highlight these things in the hopes that, in bringing this information into the public consciousness, they can effect a change that they would otherwise be powerless to bring about.
Anonymity provides a protection against vindictiveness from management who would rather do nothing than repeat the party-line, or lie, that everything is perfect, there is no cause for concern. Having seen management do, essentially illegal things, in order to persecute and victimise staff - anonymity is a way of protecting your mortgage payments."
You can understand why they are anonymous . The blogs probably contravene the terms of their employment. Yet, in their own small ways, they are important for the public to read, more so than the person writing them (in all honesty, the writer of NightJack could have been any Detective Constable). 
There are very few bloggers for whom anonymity is a near-necessity, and if it stops others coming forward to give their insights then the internet will be poorer for it. And for what purpose. One article that doesn't really amount to much.
Not everybody will agree with this. David MacLean makes some very good points as to why NightJack shouldn't remain anonymous, although even he calls The Times' decision to publish "a tough one".
In the grand scheme of things, The Times' unmasking story by itself really isn't overly big. The legacy of if could well be.
 A name familiar to anybody who's studied media law.
 Not all are. Tom Reynolds from Random Acts of Reality, who has some fairly strong words about this case, and Suzi Brent from Nee Naw are more public examples. But I'd wager they've had some awkward conversations with their line managers at some point.
 One of The Times' arguments was NightJack was committing Contempt of Court with his posts, and there is an argument here. Certainly if the blog had collapsed a trial there would be little argument against naming the author. That said, the internet is a hideously grey area when it comes to contempt. A reasonable amount of time on Google would probably produce enough to piece together extra information on any significant trial covered in either the national or local press. You'd probably have to do a fair bit of work to piece together events from a trial and link them back to the blog, and the level of threat the blog posed to a fair trial... possibly minimal. It doesn't make it right, but I'd be surprised if anything NightJack wrote would have led to a trial being abandoned.