> Some professionals, like attorneys, accountants, and private
> investigators have to be careful that a question or comment in a post is
> not correlated with their name or firm name in a manner/degree which may
> compromise a client's confidentiality and privacy interests. That is
> their professional and lawful duty. Anonymity may be a good means of
> posing a question in an open group without violating professional, legal,
> and client duties. I think these are just some examples among many where
> anonymity is perfectly reasonable.
>
> Another example is the practice in some companies to set up email type
> conferences where the managers and employees share opinions on a blind
> basis so that no one is shy to post frank opinions due to differences in
> authority levels.
In all of the examples you list, where anonymity is at the choice
of each user, an unfair advantage is given to those who *choose*
to be anonymous. In a totally anonymous community, with no imbalance,
it is a useful tool, as in the blind-conference idea you list.
> I don't think anonymity is inherently evil.
But selective, irresponsible anonymity in a non-anonymous community
is an open invitation for abuse.
---
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG
2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF
"There is only one real blasphemy: the refusal of joy." -- Paul Rudnick
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
