My comments are not based at all on your length of time at FR. I would express the same note of caution to someone/anyone who has been here as long or longer than I have. Some of us have been, shall we say, burrs under the saddle to various powers that be, and we tend to try to develop a certain level of trust with others before we share all that much personal information. In point of fact, I wasn't even thinking of you when I commented to Nita earlier.
You can call it paranoia if you like, but there have been one or two who seemed overly interested in who I am in "real life" - and quite, frankly, I'm one of the more "open" FReepers around.
Your idea is a good one. I've even toyed with something like it myself. But whereas I'd be willing to share with some here, others I wouldn't be. I noted that you were not asking for numbers yet, but I also noted that if and when you do, your plan will make it necessary that you share those numbers with at least a limited number of other folks.
[And if you must know, there are one or two folks who were already here when I arrived who I wouldn't share that information with on a bet. :-)]
This is correct. I have however tried to cut that number to a minimum, and keep the process fairly anonymous.
To elaborate on an idea expressed above, contact information shared (even with the host) can be limited to:
This information can be divorced from your online identity, even for the "host".
How? Simple. Spend a few minutes to sign up for a new hotmail or yahoo account (using a different name than your handle here) and email your minimal contact info to whoever is serving as host.
For network quality, the host should then (in my opinion) run a quick check against his member listing, confirming that your phone number is new and that you are not a known abuser of the system. He or she should then dial your number (the main one at least) to confirm you can indeed be reached.
All this would serve the vital purpose of establishing reachability and a bit of credibility for the new member, and helping prevent any booted abusers from rejoining the system.
How?
Someone could theoretically harvest 4 phone numbers by joining. If they joined multiple times, using different phone numbers, they could harvest more than that. They wouldn't know your online identity (even if you didn't bother hiding this from the host, it wouldn't be passed on), but they would have your first name and phone number, and would know you have probably frequented this forum in some way. They also have no control over whose contact info they would get - they would simply be getting contact info for 4 random FReepers, with no link to their online identity.
Hardly worth it. However, let's assume someone does this, since some moron inevitably will.
If a member reports, say, suspected telemarketing abuse, it's going to be limited to 4 people. Since the host can easily deduce who had access to those specific 4 people, it may not be too hard to track down the culprit. Such a person can and should be excluded from the chain. If he tries to reenroll to harvest more phone numbers, he'll at least have to do so with a different phone number.
Some will complain that this isn't airtight enough. Well, it's not perfect - but personally, I do get occasional calls from telemarketers. I find out who they are and then tell them to put me on their "do not call" list. They then have a legal obligation to do so.
In fact, most who telemarket are "real" companies; I suspect only a few independent bozos would even attempt such a scheme. Though some of course would.
Others might fear that some friend of Billary in government somewhere is going to get ahold of their phone number. It's possible, but (even if you ignore the gradually declining numbers of Billary friends in government) if you follow the outlined anonymizing procedure, and generally even if you don't they won't have any connection to your online identity.
Frankly, IMO, if you've put pressure on them and they have connections and want to bad enough, they'll probably track you down from your online posts using far speedier, more reliable and efficient means.
Anyway, security of information is indeed a significant concern, but as I believe others have expressed as well, I think there are ways in which the potential problems can be made minimal. I probably haven't covered all the holes we may want to cover yet, but I hope some of the ideas I've outlined here make at least some progress towards that goal.
Thanks for your comments - IMO they have contributed towards refining the concept, which is the #1 purpose of what this thread is all about.