|No such thing as a small change|
For all your talk of governments, just what do you think anonymity is used for?Did I say otherwise? You limit the use of anonymity to this aspect only. My definition includes this partial (but important) property of anonymity as well and proposes anonymity as a goal in itself and allows no external limitations. For you anonymity has a goal outside of itself (hide from someone, protect someone from bad things, ...) and thereby makes it weak and open to exceptions, reductions, restraints, ... .
To counter my definition of anonymity one must attack the idea, the concept of anonymity itself. To fight your form of anonymity, you attack (some of) the use that is to be made of it.
Such attack is much easier. It suffices to say: "Anonymity is fine, unless you use it to do xyz".
Hence my concept of anonymity which is pure and does not have a goal outside of itself. It is all or nothing.
To give an analogy: "You have the right of habeas corpus". No-one (except some backward dictatorships) would dare to take that right away from its citizens. But saying "You have the right of habeas corpus, unless you are a presumed (on the flimsiest of evidence, if any at all) terrorist caught in a military action in some far-away country", seems to be much easier to accept. One should ask why? In my point of view it is because most people think of the "habeas corpus" idea as only applying on "themselves" (i.e. our tribe, country, ethnicity, ...), whereas in my point of view it is a basic human right. The difference in view may be subtle, but the effects are major.
A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James