I often find that interesting ideas arise in discussion with others. But this suggests a possible tension between three prima facie legitimate interests:
(1) Blogging about interesting ideas,
(2) Giving credit where it's due,
(3) Privacy interests.
I tend to assume that prepared talks (e.g. conference presentations) are considered 'public', so there it's unambiguously appropriate to identify the speaker by (full) name -- much as if I were discussing a published paper.
But I think unprepared or 'off the cuff' remarks (e.g. questions from the audience, informal class discussions, etc.) come with the reasonable expectation that they will not be attached to one's "permanent (Googleable) record". So I tend to balance 'credit' and 'privacy' in such cases by using first names only, or perhaps merely initials. That way anyone who was part of the original discussion can easily follow along (and I suppose an interested reader could probably make an educated guess as to the identities involved), but it's protected from the all-seeing eye of Google, and so from third-party general searches.
Does that seem like a reasonable default practice to follow? (To anyone I've mentioned before: please let me know if you have a different preference, e.g. to be identified in full, or for that matter to be fully anonymized.) I guess to be completely safe I could explicitly ask each such person their personal preference, but that seems kind of a hassle and mildly awkward to boot. It would be worth it nonetheless if anyone's likely to be significantly bothered by my above policy, but I find that hard to imagine. What do you think?