It's risible to claim that the press published the names because they were concerned about habeas corpus.

What do you mean when you say habeas corpus essentially requires a detention to be made public? Habeas corpus provides for a review of the legality of a detention for the requester. How & when is any information given publicly under habeas corpus laws? What makes you think habeas corpus and privacy can’t co-exist?

Without public knowledge and pressure, there is no check on authoritarian abuse and the law has no teeth.

Maybe, but that's not what I asked. Don't habeas corpus laws provide public access to a (perhaps private) legal review? When do laws require sharing results with the public, as the GP comment claimed? Can there be checks on authoritarian abuse that don't require public dissemination? Is the threat of publicity exactly the same thing as a requirement for publicity?

Imagine a country where the police arrest people and they vanish in the middle of the night, with no way to determine what their status is.

There is no need to imagine a country where mugshots are freely available, even is that person is later released without charge, that already exists, and we know what the practice does.

How does your question relate to publicity at all? Habeas corpus covers that situation, assuming the country you're imagining complies with habeas corpus standards.

Isn't this standard procedure in most western democracies?

> at least if the prisoner himself so chooses

is the missing part in most cases.

> at least if the prisoner himself so chooses

This is the key.