On the OI Statement of Principles itself, the issue of anonymity/pseudonymity was third out of four, and qualified, at that. This Statement was a compromise document -- drafted by a left-wing majority -- and as such, does not reflect my own views on the subject, nor anyone else's, 100%. All this has been public knowledge from the beginning.
This reading of the third out of four principles in isolation is the kind of thing that loses law cases. It's pretty clear from the rest of the principles set out that revealing personal info is supposed to be a bad bad thing. Much like constitutional literalists who think that because the constitution has nothing to say about X that you can't apply constitutional principles to X, JT scoffs at the penumbra, while reasonable people read the OI statement - which purports to simplicity - and see someone being awfully weaselly.
The Online Integrity Statement of Principles is simple:
1. Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private persons’ professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.
2. Public figures are entitled to respect for the non-public nature of their personal, non-professional contact information, and their privacy with regard to their homes and families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted.
3. Persons seeking anonymity or pseudonymity online should have their wishes in this regard respected as much as is reasonable. Exceptions include cases of criminal, misleading, or intentionally disruptive behavior.
4. Violations of these principles should be met with a lack of positive publicity and traffic.
There's also the limited takeback in operation with the "does not reflect my own views on the subject, nor anyone else's, 100%" bit, which also fits neatly with those who love readings in isolation: authorial intent is a big deal to the right-wingers who would limit legal interpretation to what the authors of the law could possibly conceive of at the time. (Some make such a big deal of authorial intent in novels that they out others over it: the doctrine is personal as well as political.) Tacitus is, I suppose, being consistent in the way he thinks legalese should be used.
Anyway, for the latest trigger to be a not-purloined wedding photo (though I think I would have agreed to dispose of the picture in question) as opposed to whether or not concentration camps are a good idea is just sad.