The alleged means of the so called beach are the nub of the issue here. 'Jigsaw identification' was a contrivance to specifically target Mr Murray, and notably is not a mechanism that has been used against any other entities, though it could have been.
For me, it's far too loosely defined and requires supposition of Intenet (mind reading) , to be used as a means of conviction.
Jigsaw identification is a real thing, and real journalists are taught about it as part of defamation awareness.
Related story: when I was the deputy editor of a paper in a large UK city I was read in on the approximate locations of people known to be on our patch who were subjects of injunctions protecting their identities, just so that we didn’t accidentally reveal anything that could expose their whereabouts when reporting seemingly unconnected events such as house fires etc.
Indeed, it seems like the newspapers were already publishing things at the time with far more detail to point at Alex Salmond, but nothing happened to them.
Isn't the "jigsaw identification" essentially similar to the 'personally identifiable information' addressed by GDPR? It seems to me that both constructs stand and fall together.
PII is precisely defined, not pulled out of thin air, and nobody's going to jail because of it. Rich corporations like Amazon are fined for fucking with it though.
For me, it's far too loosely defined and requires supposition of Intenet (mind reading) , to be used as a means of conviction.