Privacy rights of UFO witnesses?

[Sentry]

(Confession- I posted this on Another Type of Site, and got mostly jokes for replies. So, I'm coming back home looking for reasonable input.)

UFO witnesses are subjected to a lot of pressure. Besides the ridicule, they are subjected to examination from investigators and curiosity seekers. Since UFO cases never seem to die, they seem to be thrust into the spotlight for the rest of their lives.

And it's not just the witnesses. Anyone that was mentioned while the case was being investigated becomes part of the record and can be subject to having their privacy violated, such as neighbors, police officers, reporters and doctors.

Given the climate, some people just choose to not report their experience. There should be some way for witnesses to protect themselves. I don't like anonymity, as I think it allows for too many pranks and hoaxes, but maybe partial anonymity? Allow their story to be told with their names on file, but a pseudonym used in public reports.

I guess my question is really about the ethics of journalism. The Internet takes everything to a new level, as articles and videos are permanently archived and the individual has no control how information about them can be exploited. It used to be that the stories would fade away with the newsprint, but now the witnesses' names are out there for everyone to see forever.

The reason I'm thinking about this is I need to beat the bushes while looking into an old case. I have to ask myself, if its fair to bother these people decades later, just because their name is in a UFO case file?

 

[Randall]

I have to ask myself, if its fair to bother these people decades later, just because their name is in a UFO case file?

The mere fact that you're asking the question means you aren't bereft of ethics. Ultimately, I don't see any harm in discreetly asking people. I've been asking people randomly in open conversation for decades just to see what happens, and I've yet to get a serious objection to just being asked. A witness on record is a somewhat more delicate situation, but your instincts seem good. If you are going to do it in person, just be friendly, sincere, and presentable. The rest will take care of itself.

 

[Sentry]

Ultimately, I don't see any harm in discreetly asking people.

Thanks for your view on this. Now, that I stop and think about it, this is only a degree or so different than what, I've already been doing- approaching UFO authors, researchers and news reporters. Since they were at least partially public figures, I didn't have quite the same concerns about contacting them.
Most of those contacts were friendly and positive; the worst were only unresponsive, or politely declined to discuss matters. I suppose I should expect about the same when moving on to witnesses.

 

[Sentry]

A related issue to privacy is the right to witness or source anonymity. Check out the recent article by Nick Redfern where he responds to critics of his use of anonymous sources. The journalistic practice has legitimacy, but has become overused and is also a tool of those using unqualified, bogus or fabricated sources. When dealing with UFOs the subject itself is so sketchy that having too many like "Deep Throat" and "Mr. X" just makes it seem even more melodramatic, silly and fictitious.
Flying Saucers, Anonymous Sources | Mysterious Universe

 

[Burnt State]

I have this notion about the history of Ufology, that at its best it is about an ethical approach to being on the verge of discovering something amazing. All tenets of journalism should apply and it's good to know, Sentry, that someone is still carrying out those practices. I think Redfern's points stand. What's difficult about the contemporary incarnation of Ufology is that so much of it is mired in fabrication, third hand unconfirmed hogwash and sheer invention. You are traveling in the correct direction when you hold a personal, ethical line in how you research and report reality.