If SJVN says he met a person who claimed to be 'PJ', I'm sure he did have one or more such encounters. That still doesn't mean Groklaw struck the right balance between privacy and public activism.
No serious person would want an avatar named 'PJ' to run for Congress or for President, given that people seeking to be elected for such an office must present themselves to their voters and provide a considerably higher degree of transparency than most other people.
'PJ' didn't provide much serious analysis -- just a combination of pseudolegal rants and conspiracy theories. Someone who makes claims about other people and their backing but neither states a past or current employer nor presented 'herself' at a conference or with a picture (which would at least make it somewhat possible that someone recognizes the person and can say something about the professional background) is just not reasonable.
I think there's nothing wrong with people making anonymous posts on websites that allow that. I also think it's fine to use pseudonyms in some other online contexts. But I draw the line where someone plays a highly political role and applies double standards by presenting themself as a kind of 'transparency watchdog' while not even disclosing a minimum amount of information about themself.
Meeting with one or a very few people -- so far you're the only who claims to have met a person who claimed to be 'PJ' -- is no substitute for allowing anyone to find out about that person's identity.
Realistically, the only explanation is that 'PJ', whether a person or a group, has something to hide.
Discussion on:
Message 1 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
