Not like the KGB of old would tell a reporter the truth when they ask if the nameless detained man in a gulag somewhere requested his name be reported and let them blow open the fact that the government is arresting non-criminals for political purposes. I mean in that situation, Soviets already knew--it's not a perfect analogy. They'll just say he exercised his right to privacy.

It only works if the announcement of identity is public by default, unfortunately. Neither option is great at all, but I don't think I'm qualified to come up with a better plan.

Not really. If the cops want to drag you off and detain you secretly for indefinite amount of time (what the law is trying to prevent), then all they have to do is charge you with some embarrassing crime like "sex with underage minor", to force you to waive that right.

Your distinction still places the trust in the discretion of the police/press. If they don't disclose the name, then it's harder for character witnesses to come forward (e.g. the couple's neighbors in this case).

Front page headlines along the lines of "The police believe these people are criminals who caused huge inconvenience and suffering to hundreds of thousands of people - would someone like to say a good work about them?" probably aren't the best way to guarantee a fair trial.

Again, this sub-thread's premise is that "naming people who've been arrested is an important measure against authoritarian regimes."

The point is, you wouldn't get a "fair trial" in an authoritarian society. Knowing whether you're in one is tough (It could be as low-level as local law enforcement.) Given these two points, it's a values-based argument that more information is better. That's all.

Of course, it's horrible when someone gets wrongfully accused. I don't know where the sweet spot is. I'm outsourcing much of my trust to other citizens.