In psychotherapy and in many other consulting practices rights to privacy are asserted. As such, there is a need to inform the individual seeking treatment the circumstances where the privilege they hold may be waived or breached. Recently in the field of education there has been a push towards the utilization of anonymous reporting apps to prevent acts of violence (Secret Service July School Shooter White Paper). Often, a fundamental assumption is made namely, that is children or adolescents are more likely to report bullying or a potential crime if they will not be identified. A problem with this assumption is the false notion that reporting is completely anonymous. How many still believe that total anonymity and privacy is realistically possible? Many of these products, especially under the compulsion of a subpoena, can identify the person who filed the ‘anonymous’ report. How then is it truly anonymous? Do the assertions of anonymity match the reality of what may occur under such circumstances? Is there any need to obtain informed consent, cautioning someone that there may be limits to anonymity? In Mandated Reporter training we explain that if a case goes to court, their identity may potentially become known. However, if their report turns out to be unsubstantiated, their anonymity is safer.
As adults, we believed in the possibility of anonymous tip lines. Our youths today are savvy and more aware that their phones and devices can be traced. They utilize privacy software and sites that claim to to send text messages anonymously, yet they hear news about individuals who thought their messages were anonymous but were later arrested. This has occurred with WhatsApp (e.g. Paul Manafort) and Burn Book. Their searching for anonymizers suggests that they are aware that they may later be identified. Today with my colleagues at Bridg-it, we have decided to conduct surveys of the school populations we work with to determine whether today’s digital youth believe App makers’ promises of anonymity. In some ways anonymity only deepens our problems because seeing something and then sending something should not remain in the shadows secured by an alleged ‘duck-and-cover’ blind.
If concerns are voiced early enough in the progression to harmful acts then intervention is preventative and not harmful. Ultimately the goal of preventing problems through social-emotional learning and through the implementation of restorative justice practices builds the type of communities where there are upstanders. These individuals are resources in the community as well as bellwethers. The slogan of Homeland Security is not see something and anonymously say something. Benjamin Franklin informed us many years ago that you are unable to put a young head on old shoulders. The question of whether anonymity improves reporting is an empirical one. A brief search of the literature finds no substantial empirical support for the premise of increased accurate reporting using the search terms adolescents, reporting and anonymous. The downside of anonymity is that it also does not bring resources to the person taking the risk to share their concerns. Further, it makes it difficult for the person to track the accuracy of their perceptions and whether anyone acted on their fears. Those of us who are not digital natives may perceive the world differently than those who were raised with both sippy cups and iPhones in their hands.