So far in August, I have seen the worst of the worst. No names, or if there are any some ridiculous screen name to hide their true identity. I've seen it on wrestling forums, and it's one of the few times than my wrestling enemies and I agree. At least when I post I use the name they know (Timelord) there are no doubts who is speaking on the forum or wherever else.

But whether it's nonsense like Dr.Who (clearly mocking me but anyway), The Twilight Zone, Yet Another Anon or whatever else - the fact remains. These people (and I use that term loosely) are the ones that make the Internet an unsafe place, using the refuge of anonymity to hide themselves so they can say whatever they bloody well please.

For example, on Fore Sam's blog there have been a lot of anonymous posts. They have been allowed through for the most part because they agree with him. And there's a lot of shameful behaviour in there.

Also on Joeker's blog, the same thing has been happening - abuse from anonymity.

And I have no doubt that it happens on other blogs where anonymous posting is permitted.

It's no wonder a lot of blogs cut that sort of thing off. And rightly so.

But even in forums you just don't know who you are talking to. There's an add running at the moment about child abuse on the Internet - showing just how easy it is for kids to get into trouble. It also shows that the e-crime boys are on to them and acting - which is a good thing.

In some blogs though - there is another difficulty. Getting IP addresses for bad posts. It's why I don't allow comments on my AS blog, because of the threat of anonymous postings that I can't track down. I don't know if Big Blog would help if anything came up, but after my experience with Google - who own Blogger and Blogspot - I'm not taking any chances with it. Google won't do anything without a court order, and a Californian one only at that - just to make them uphold their Terms of Service and their content rules. Ridiculous. And anonymous idiots take full advantage of this believing that they can say whatever they want - and not be held to a count for it.

I was interested just recently when Mark (DMP) answered a question in the Question Game here about privacy being too strict;

Sometimes, but sometimes it's not strict enough
DMP on the Question Game on August 9, 2007

Here's the rub because this is an answer I sort of expected from anyone who knew that privacy was important, but at the same time it also held back the identification of people who were creating trouble. This is why I asked the question because Mark is right. There are people willing to abuse trust. For example, just today after yet another nameless idiot called Informer linked Joeker to my submission to the country football enquiry (which contained my contact details) I called up the committee and asked them to black out those details. I should have done it before so it may be partly my fault - but that's what anon's are capable of.

Then there's the issue of overseas salespeople and marketeers buying silent phone number lists. Our phone number is silent (and not in the White Pages as a result of course) so that is a major concern.

On the other hand, you have genuine criminals and people who can be identified (such as Paris Tenana) using these same protections to avoid proper justice. Over country borders that's fine (such as Australia and Canada or Australia and the US), but not within a country where we live under the same laws!

That's partly why I wikified Phil's World. The ease of access to IP addresses.