just wondering
does a twitter link
do the same as a face book link
[ie cut off the origonal site adverts abilities etc]

how would i check it
im reluctant to search their box
as i know it builds up their prophiles

also noted cause i went in via wiklink of yourn
i get all the wikileaking posts without doing anything else

[still leaving a trail
wondef how far they backtrack?]

oh well
the curse of no where to hide
we are watching...lol...you

stuff em
fear no evil

life fairly but live fearlessly

Dear OUG,

You certainly have good sense to avoid that evil. My router is programmed to block both sites.
If you really have to go there, disable all cookies and remove all the ones that are already set.

A blessing and a curse.

"...or who have a job which doesn't allow them public comment, will disappear."

Public servants who post on here would probably not participate if their username revealed identity. Or perhaps they might not be as open and honest with their comments and experiences. Public comment on various issues (even if not within one's portfolio) would be frowned upon even when participating in the privacy of one's home. There is already immense monitoring and security screening of today's public servant.

Also most importantly, there are nutjobs out there and exposing oneself to possible threats does not encourage participation.

What is to stop somebody giving Graham a false name and offering a generic hotmail contactor from using an internet cafe/library to avoid identification through ISP address? I should confess I am no IT expert or internet security aficionado.

If one is keen enough, I suspect there will always be ways to circumvent providing genuine information, even if the options are inconvenient. Personally I don't have the time or inclination to bother and I hope OLO continues to respect anonymity; ultimately the decision is OLO's as regard time and resources.

As for advertising, it might be argued that the robust nature of the site attracts more readers/participants.

Poirot,

In attempting to answer the second barrel of your double-barrelled question I would first highlight the observation made by 'Rusty Catheter' in the second post to this thread, that:

"Unless you take elaborate steps,
you are not unfindable in any case.
electronic trails are too pervasive,
permanent and never too much trouble
to check."

and;

"Graham's logs can easily be seized
by people with less conspicuous
devotion to anonymity."

It is important to note that whilst such 'findability' is relatively easy for those able to at least purport to have sufficient official cause to inquire as to online identities, they must at least appear to give lip-service to the various 'protections' with which legislation, when emplaced, is invariably surrounded.

The danger lies in making it easy for the ever-prevalent malicious busybody, or ubiquitous 'wingnut', to be able to claim that they themselves (shinily feigning in some cases) 'discovered' a pseudonymous poster's (in their opinion) real identity. Once that is done, the perfect cop-out exists for the malicious prosecutorial element that always seems to ensconce itself within officialdom to be able to claim that they had no role in revealing what has nevertheless 'come to light' and must now be 'acted upon'. That is one reason why 'evidence' obtained under improperly issued search warrants in off-line life cannot be used to obtain convictions.

One only has to look back not so far on OLO to see the vigour with which some posters were pursued by an element that wanted to shut down the views of its target posters using a substitute for 'real name' identification, that of labeling. Some of that all came to a head and betrayed indications of an actual attempt to shut down the OLO site around the time of the Greg Storer/Mikey Bear tag team effort. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4263#108867

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4263#108609

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583#198483

I tend to use OLO as a 'journal of record', not as a forum within which my 'anonymity' assists my 'winning' of online arguments. To deny availability of pseudonymity to posters would be, in my opinion, a huge mistake. I would leave.

I want to expand on what Forrest Gumpp has said.
Hoping I do not give idiots and idea.
How hard would it be,for any of us, to craft a false ID.
Even use an others name?
I know of a site killed by some with IQ in the lower range.
Few disagree we have a good site but I add my concerns it would bean over kill to force such openness.

Forrest, I think it's instructive that all those who've tried to suppress others' right to speak freely on this site have been of the Left. They'd all no doubt proudly identify as Feminists as well and they would be entirely supportive of "progressive debate framing" that involves censorship and repression.

It's sad that otherwise intelligent people are so unsure of their own views, yet so certain that whatever they are they're correct, that they can't stand to have them challenged in open discussion.