Woman identified by NYT despite asking not to be identified

There I was a couple of weekends ago, cruising along through a Sunday edition of the New York Times. Until I came across an article on Eckhart Tolle, a name I recalled from my days as a publicist for Shambhala Publications. (I don't believe Shambhala ever published Tolle, but his name was in the same circles, and I believe he blurbed a book or two.)

The article was straightforward enough---a typical mainstream dip into New Age media, via an Oprah newspeg---until I reached this passage:

Mr. Tolle’s own representatives had fewer specifics. “We don’t have a lot of knowledge about Eckhart Tolle as a person,” said a woman who answered the phone last week at the Vancouver office of Eckhart Teachings, and who asked not to be identified. “And I’m the only one here.”

That's a mighty quick process of elimination for someone who doesn't want to be identified!

This is surely a moment in which the rights and privileges of journalists lock horns with the uninformed expectations of the "area woman"---in this case, the one who "answered the phone." More likely than not, this woman hadn't been interviewed by a reporter before (at least not in her current capacity as a Tolle representative), and didn't realize every word she uttered was on the record. She was sharp enough to declare that she wished to remain anonymous; but she wasn't sharp enough to withhold information that could identify her. Or at least come close to identifying her.