Mr. T. J. McIntyre:

It can be expensive. One of the problems with Irish law is that we have an access to justice issue that is not unique to this area. A billionaire will find it much easier to assert his rights than an average citizen. Unfortunately, we are not an outlier in this regard. As a lawyer, I do not want to stand here and say lawyers are too expensive, but perhaps that can be said of the courts system generally. Collectively, those of us who offer the technical expertise needed to enforce one's rights are too expensive.

I am concerned that if we make changes to existing laws, we might undermine some of the rights that currently exist. An example of this relates to anonymity. It has been suggested at this committee that a greater degree of identification can be provided for by requiring real-name registration of users, etc. I am sure the members of the committee will be familiar with two great Irish writers who chose to write anonymously for various reasons: Jonathan Swift and Myles na gCopaleen, aka Flann O'Brien, aka Brian O'Nolan and many other names. Just as people find it important to protect their identities online, Brian O'Nolan wrote anonymously because of his position as a civil servant. Some media columns are written anonymously by politicians so that they have the freedom to speak with a certain candour they might not otherwise be able to show. I am thinking particularly of the Drapier column in The Irish Times.

Similarly, Barnardos recommends that children should be able to speak freely about issues such as parental break-up via chat lines, forums or blogs. It strongly recommends that children who use the Internet to talk through their issues and engage with others about the challenges they face should never use their real names or reveal their identities online in case this might be used to persecute them in future. There has to be a concern that if we begin to restrict privacy online, it may have unintended consequences for vulnerable groups such as victims of domestic abuse. The Women's Aid website talks about the risks to women whose abusers discover what they do online. Such abusers often use their online identities to track women, or use the fact that women might be seeking help online to prevent them from leaving abusive relationships. Privacy is important for such women.

This issue also arises in a slightly more unexpected context. In 2006, Ryanair brought an action against the Ryanair European Pilots' Association website to seek to identify particular pilots who were posting anonymously to complain about their working conditions, terms of employment, etc. Ryanair essentially claimed to be protecting the safety of its workplace, but the High Court rejected its application. Mr. Justice T. C. Smyth took the view that, rather than engaging in a bona fide application, Ryanair had engaged in a "feigned exercise" designed to divide the loyalty of members of the IALPA union. He said it formed part of a "war of attrition" on Ryanair captains, aimed at dissuading them from exercising their rights through legal battle. There is a concern that if the captains in that case had been identified, they would have been unable to gather together collectively to exercise their right to form a union, engage in union activity and possibly take industrial action.

The final example I would like to give relates to whistleblowers. The committee will be familiar with the case of Mr. Noel Wardick, a senior member of staff at the Irish Red Cross who expressed concerns about the governance of that organisation in an anonymous blog. He was eventually identified after an application was made seeking his identity from Blogger, which is a blogging platform operated by Google. He identified himself and, as a result, was dismissed from his position at the Irish Red Cross. I understand he testified before the Oireachtas on a number of occasions to elaborate on his governance concerns. We are concerned that restrictions which make it easier to identify people will tend to deter potential whistleblowers from coming forward.

A related point arises when we think about how existing telecommunications law might be applied to the Internet. It has been mentioned at previous hearings that the sending of abusive messages is an offence under section 13 of the Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951. If we expand that offence further, there is a real risk that it might have unintended effects on what can be said online. With the permission of the Chair, I will ask my colleague, Mr. Crehan, to address that point.