Laura June posted this piece on Engadget recently and I'd like to bring it to everyone's attention.

It's pretty clear that I believe in an individual's choice to use the internet in a way that doesn't supply the entire world with their name, their home address, and their mobile phone number. Part of the incredible richness that exists on the internet is exactly because people can use it without full disclosure. Sure, there are people that would rather have a cleaner, more scripted and controlled user experience. There are others that revel when hints of anarchy color things less black and white as well.

(Copyright Jackrabbitscrewball.com)

This clear division of attitudes made itself clear to me just this weekend as I was browsing the comments on a post about malicious android apps (also on Engadget). If you disregard the chaff comments (which are exactly why people decry anonymity on the internet) it's clear that there are two camps: those that prefer a guided controlled experience (iTunes apps) and those that prefer the freedom of an unguided market and accept the inherent risks (Google's Android market). Those same two camps will vote identically when asked if they approve of the TSA security measures before boarding an airplane. Full body scanners? It's either "Sign me up, I love being safe!" or "No thanks, I'd rather keep a shred of privacy and decency than give it up for unproven potential increases in safety."

You'll never reconcile these two groups, no matter how you ask the same question. All we can ever hope for are useful real world compromises that make the first group feel safer and take the least away from the second. I'll be opening comments up on this thread. Maybe we'll get a few that aren't anon spam too!

--Jack

Engadget link 3/27/2011: http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/07/editorial-facebook-single-identities-and-the-right-to-be-anon/