Not a simple issue of yes or no but maybe it's an important discussion. People don't feel safe using their real identity for various reasons. But what are some valid reasons?

Anonymity breeds contempt? Anonymity provides some safety from the very dangerous masses on the internet.

e.g. look up that article about the guy that was streaming his competitive gameplay, apparently his competition figured out where he lived, they called the local sheriff with a made-up story and the swat team raided his house with guns in faces. The guy had kids in the house. His 22 yr old was woken up from sleep and handcuffed at gun point.

People should have the option of safely using their real identities should they choose to. They should also have the option of reliably staying anonymous, should they choose to, until a court says otherwise.

FWIW, I've been here under my real identity for around a decade.

Someone was doing live-streamed competitive gaming in his late middle ages? No, I didn't hear about that particular incident, but it's cool that people that age are doing that.

I think it has it's place. And I think that anyone looking for a fight, stands to find one.

That story itself may be made up, or the victim in that story may have helped circumstances to occur by the way they acted online.

My personal style is to be anonymous for purposes of avoiding pestering.

Since I'm not a gamer or someone who participates in group, active, online activities, I can't really speak towards the extremity of that particular situation or similar ones.

Things get out of hand, I'd rather say, "OK, sorry, we don't agree. Done." And move on and not be a continual antagonizing factor to the situation.

Self included, but for less time, I think 2009 was when I signed up.

It's a common enough occurrence that that really doesn't matter if that particular story is made up. Here's a recent local one:

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Coqu...987/story.html

If I couldn't interact anonymously (well, as much as one can, I don't mean free from law enforcement tracking me down)* online then I wouldn't interact online at all.
There's no way I want a throw-away remark I once made about, for example, Microsoft Products or religion to cost me a job interview because the prospective employer can google (short example, I think the reader can understand what I mean?).
I may also like to comment upon issues affecting a company or companies I have some dealings with and would not want to either be mistaken for a representative of such or, be seeing to bring them into disrepute, or otherwise causing issues.
I find online chat with real identities, Facebook and its ilk, odd. I email my real-life friends rather than publish out conversations on the internet.

*I do think that kind of anonymity is important for some though remembering that in some countries even a light criticism of the government or using forbidden words can lead to imprisonment or worse.

I see this from a number of different and distinct angles:

(1) Yes, you have the right to use a pen-name or a straw-man. Samuel Clemens used "Mark Twain."

(2) Yes, you are responsible for what you do and say on-line, just as off-line. It is not-okay to attempt to conceal your identity for the purpose of committing a crime, or any other kind of tort.

(3) The "carriers in due course" of things like e-mail, chat messages, or even "internet traffic in general" should not have the prerogative to eavesdrop, not even for "marketing purposes." They should not be able to assemble a dossier.

(4) You should be "routinely" using encryption a great deal more than you do now. If anyone serves you with a search warrant or a subpoena about it, "don't be stupid." But otherwise, as Mr. Zimmerman said, "it's nobody's business but yours" (and Alice's, or Bob's). Our present security is seriously weakened, not strengthened, by our "promiscuous" sharing of things that ought not be shared. Knowledge is Power, for good or for ill.

I think that a clear line should be drawn, IMO. Privacy is good, anonymity is bad.

For example, you can attain a good level of privacy using various firefox addons that block scripts, remove ads and web bugs, and control cookies. There are also simple measures like not putting your real name online, or if you have to don't post anything that you wouldn't say to anyone and everyone under that identity. You can attain a good level of anonymity using Tor, although this is debatable. Either way, many illegal activities are carried out on Tor, and unfortunately many of them persist. Doing something illegal with only privacy-enabling addons will probably get you caught much faster.

So, my question is, what do you want/need ?

I choose privacy, it is enough. All I care about is not being tracked by ad companies and sites. If anyone does anything illegal they will be caught. Having said that, sometimes anonymity is necessary, but this is a sign that you are living in a totalitarian regime when you actually need it, and it might be better just to leave the country.

I agree with metaschima.

I always use my own identity on line. But I am not registered to any so-called "social" network (this including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, Google, Linkedin...) an do not use online games.

I realize that real anonymity (that can't be broken) is very hard to maintain if not impossible even with tor, and that what I post on the Internet probably will be accessible to others during a _very_ long time, so I just try to avoid posting something that I could regret having broadcasted later.

About privacy: I tend not to share publicly any personal information that can't easily be found anyway. I must admit that I am bit lazy and until now used neither encryption nor authentication methods for email and files signing. I intend to do that in the future as one of the things that worry me is identity stealing.

I think there are at least two (sort-of three) kinds of anonymity being talked about here:
1) a) Being able to post under a pseudonym but being completely known to the site administrator. b)Being able to post under a pseudonym that even a site administrator would find it hard (or impossible) to link to a real identity.
2) Being able to post under a pseudonym that law enforcement would find it hard (or impossible) to link to a real identity.
I actually believe that all kinds are necessary in this world but I require at least 1a if not 1b in order to post online.
I see this as the same as going to the pub -- I can say what I like without it being a matter of public record and don't have to tell anybody anything about me I don't want to reveal. I choose not to wear my work ID badge at the pub and choose not to wear it online either. That's because there are some people in the pub who I don't want knowing my real name and employer -- same goes for online for various reasons.
I can go to the pub and say "My boss is an a***." and that's fine and I want that ability online also. I can also say "I think such and such a religious view is balderdash" in the pub without it being published across the world with my name attached and want that ability online also.
It's not that I don't stand by my beliefs or that I post anything particularly controversial -- just that one never knows when even a real-world conversation that's not published internationally forever can cause issues.

The game player demographic is much older than most people think.

Many spend their time looking for fights, definitely.

All too real. Search for streaming gamer raided. 1000's witnessed it because he was live streaming.

And you think it's okay for a swat team to raid someone based on how someone acted online?
With weapons live and in your family's face?

Maybe I misunderstand your comment.

One thing additionally, sort of a blanket reply. Using enryption and that is good for preventing the other cafe patrons sniffing your passwords, etc. But with the prevalence of "the cloud", traffic going to/from "the cloud" is unencrypted on the way through, the data is all out there in unencrypted form. Sad state of affairs I'd say.

Search sanctioned MITM.

MITM = man in the middle

I've been largely anonymous on the internet for 24 years. And for all of you who do not think I have the right to be that way, consider the following...

"A fifth of IT executives admitted they have rejected applicants because of what they have posted on social media." - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dia-sites.html

Career Builder statistics 2014: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/a...12%2F31%2F2014

I've already been fired once because I expressed distaste at the idea of converting to Mormonism. (Pamphlets were left at my desk regularly, etc.) The last thing I want is to be disqualified as an applicant because I don't like some genre of music or favor some political candidate. I have every right to remain anonymous unless there is evidence of a crime.

I rarely engage tools to browse anonymous. I hate tracking and recording that some sites and companies do, but understand that they use that to finance services that I access for free, that otherwise would cost me money. I allow, but control as well as I can, the extent to which they can capture my data.

I allow and support the use of tools and features to allow more anonymous browsing. I correspond occasionally with people who, due to local politics, would be executed if their activity (quite normal and reasonable anywhere else in the world) were tracked to a physical location. I do not support tyranny or oppression.

Freedom, and the that includes freedom to perform your own risk evaluation and engage the internet in a way you consider safe and secure, has always been a standard and expectation for internet access from the bitnet days. That expectation is not always reasonable or easy to meet everywhere in the world. (Even in the USA, see NSA articles from the last 7 years.)

The question, as stated, has no answer. Anonymity is a feature of certain modes of operation or tools to secure and restrict traffic to make your location and identity difficult to detect. Good or bad is determined by usage and purpose, not the word itself.

Ask a better question.