Replies

"If you don't understand the simplicity of that, I can't help you."

If this is what you're referring to, I'm sorry. Truly and without any sarcasm. Condescension was not the goal.

I pride myself on civil discourse and with as little flaming as possible - I mean no offense to anyone save trolls. And I don't think you're a troll.

However, let me try to restate what I meant:

The anonymous testimony isn't meant to hide data from the public, rather it allow more unadulturated data to come forth by protecting the source. Witness protection is the term I like to think of in this case.

I think that the concept of "need-to-know" and "privacy" are very important. The tone of my comments got a little nutty because there are a lot of people who would demand to know anything about anybody if it satisfies their curiousity and gives them a target to hit when the fit hits the shan. This has been particularly out of control in regards to the Columbia investigation.

Under the guise of privacy in particular, without the anonymous testimony, a whole bunch of folks would be pleading the fifth right now, whether they were guilty of anything or not.