Anonymity is prized in today's world. True. Sites like Anonymizer have flourished for more than a decade thanks to the basic human right of wanting to reveal to the outside world only what the individual desires to expose. Fair enough. The problem arises when people attempt to misuse anonymity. JP highlights the dangers that anonymity can potentially cause. The recent Kathy Sierra episode could have been prevented had we had complete onymity without any ambiguity.

In my own view though, the critical need is to balance the risk of abuse of authority with the risk of abuse of anonymity. If people in authority themselves seek shelter under anonymity that is a sure case for complete onymity. *laugh* Anonymity is not so much of a danger so long as the power dynamics are skewed (anonymity seeks to balance the same), “collective intelligence” can be banked upon to override misuse of anonymity and misuse of power is a bigger threat than misuse of anonymity. Eg. An employee satisfaction survey could be completely anonymous.

Take an election. Before the election, the power is with the people and the real risk is one of misuse of anonymity by voters. Hence voters are onymous. Once the election is over, power of authority is with the politician. He can target individuals who have gone against him. Hence the votes themselves are anonymous. But some politicians are smart enough to target whole constituencies that have gone against them! Stephen Smoliar seems to agree with this line of argument with an amendment that systems can be fragile…..

"Prakash has hit an important nail on the head. I would like to amend it, however, with the observation that systems that deal with misuse of power, when they exist at all, are highly fragile."

PS: Hope Kathy starts blogging again. Her marketing insights are unique and I will miss them.
Kathy: If you are reading this. Don't let cowards who hide behind login id's bother you. The vast majority of the blogsphere is with you!