[linkydinkandyou]

These discussions remind me of the debate over caller ID in California. California was one of the last states to have Caller ID.

On the opposing side were battered women's advocacy groups arguing that Caller ID would make it impossible for a woman to hide her location from her tormentor.

See http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/15/nyregion/popularity-of-cal... for a general discussion about this.

the most vehement opposition has come from advocates for battered women and other victims whose safety might depend on being able to call help lines or domestic-violence shelters anonymously. One Caller I.D. option lists numbers for calls that have been made as well as for calls received; thus an abusive husband, for example, could tell if his wife had called for help. And if such a victim has left home, Caller I.D. might help the abuser track her down if she or her children called. 'A Step Backward'

And among the groups that wanted it were, you guessed it, battered women's advocacy groups who argued that Caller ID would put an end to harassing phone calls!

Both sides gave tearful testimony to the California PUC.

[zyxley]

I don't see the similarity. Where are the disadvantaged and at-risk groups arguing that Facebook's name policy is a good thing?