As reported in the Times here http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece, I would agree that the Times had no 'enforceable obligation' to protect the identity of NightJack, but I cannot agree that exposing NightJack was in the public interest.

It was in the public interest for the Times to confirm that NightJack was what he claimed to be because then followers of his blog would know that this was indeed written by a serving detective.

However, the public interest was most definitely NOT served by exposing NightJack.  The result has been to deprive the public of NightJack and of other blogs that will not now be written because of the fear of exposure.  It also makes whistle blowing more dangerous.

No, the interest that has been served is of the Times itself; namely to deprive the general public of alternative (free) sources of news and comment.

If the Times was really concerned about the public interest then they wouldn't have let the MP's expenses story go to the Telegraph.

Here is a link to a Times page with a lot of comments - mostly, like me, very unhappy with the behaviour of the Times

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/06/i-have-had-quite-a-few-emails-and-comments-about-nightjack-and-the-times-story-revealing-his-identity-so-i-thought-i-would-g.html

My personal view, and yes, I am blogging under my real name, is that the best way to show the Times how unhappy I am is never to buy it again until there is evidence of a change of policy.