Facebook Ordered To End Its Real Name Policy In Germany

An anonymous reader writes with a blow to Facebook's policy banning accounts under pseudonyms. From the article: "A German privacy regulator ordered Facebook to stop enforcing its real name policy because it violates a German law that gives users the right to use nicknames online. 'We believe the orders are without merit, a waste of German taxpayers' money and we will fight it vigorously,' a Facebook spokeswoman said in an emailed statement."

Comments

typical

[v1]

"We believe the orders are without merit, a waste of German taxpayers' money and we will fight it vigorously"

Sounds like someone that has a complete lack of respect for the law in general. "We don't agree with the law, we don't want you trying to enforce the law on us, and we're going to fight it even though it's law."

I do hope the German court decides to haul them out back behind the woodshed and explain how legislature, laws, and law enforcement work.

Re:typical

[Dexter Herbivore]

I don't get why Facebook is so against it? Theoretically at least they shouldn't be selling personally identifiable data, just aggregate data, so an individual identification won't affect their product.

Re:typical

[kdemetter]

Not to mention that this seems to actually be a law which serves the people, rather than corporations .

Re:typical

[Mitreya]

I don't get why Facebook is so against it? Theoretically at least they shouldn't be selling personally identifiable data, just aggregate data, so an individual identification won't affect their product.

Most likely because they want to guarantee unique and real human accounts to advertisers, when selling ads.

Also, because it makes it easier to connect accounts to other data they may have access to (credit cards on Zinga's servers, etc.).

I am surprised they don't ask for SSN in US so that they can run credit reports and what not. Enough people are sufficiently stupid to hand it over.

Re:typical

[Spaseboy]

An American company really believes they can force Germany to change their laws or allow Facebook to operate outside of the law? Just WOW. What the hell kind of shenanigans are they pulling over here, then?

Re:typical

[CodeBuster]

The statements of belief are matters of opinion to be decided by the German courts. As for the German taxpayers, I doubt that many of them would consider this a waste of money. The Europeans in general and the Germans in particular have very well developed and sophisticated legal concepts of privacy and ownership of personal information. This is due in no small part to successive generations of European taxpayers who, recognizing the value in such things, directed their governments to secure them rather than allowing them to routinely violate them as we've done here in the United States.

Re:typical

[bill_mcgonigle]

I don't get why Facebook is so against it?

Part of their product is a directory service. They're also trying to wade into commerce. They also have third-party authentication services through OAuth. For those three things, real names are usually required. No doubt hey have other products in the works - some of their new offering might require real names.

Additionally, anonymous people tend to act like jackasses online, so their costs are bound to be higher.

I'm curious (really) if German ecommerce sites have to accept nicknames along with credit card numbers (and deal with chargebacks if there's fraud).

Re:typical

[sFurbo]

The name on credit cards are not used as account names, so I would guess that it is treated differently. If FB wanted to demand a valid CC, I suppose they could do that, but that would remove a lot of children and, I hope, adults who does not want to hand over their payment credentials to anyone who asks. Also, they might still be required to allow people to use pseudonyms on postings.

Re:typical

[fyngyrz]

allowing nicknames lowers the barriers for spammers and people with sockpuppet accounts.

Obviously, AC, you're a spammer and a sockpuppet. Fuck thee off.

You couldn't possibly have a legit reason to be AC.

Re:typical

[loufoque]

Children have credit cards too.

Re:typical

[thetoadwarrior]

Only if their parents fail at life.

Re:typical

[bmo]

Additionally, anonymous people tend to act like jackasses online

This has nothing to do with anything. Haven't you seen at the jackassery committed by people under their real names?

Come on.

My online identity is my online identity, and as far as Facebook is concerned, I am an owl. This does not change my online behavior and it's not an impediment for me to use Facebook this way. In real life I have the right to call myself whatever I want as long as I'm not trying to defraud anyone and screw you for saying I shouldn't have that right online.

--
BMO

Re:typical

[magic maverick]

"Additionally, anonymous people tend to act like jackasses online, so their costs are bound to be higher."

Anonymous people maybe slightly more likely to act like "jackasses" online, however, pseudonymous people, and those using their real names, also act like right dickheads as well. It's not really a good reason to remove anonymity.

There are many more reasons to not require real names. Political activists (especially in repressive locations) really don't want to use their real name; people with "unusual" hobbies or opinions may not want their "real life" identity connected with discussions online; etc. etc. etc.

See also: My Name Is Me and Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy?.

Re:typical

[wonkey_monkey]

What sort of stupid parent doesn't provide a mean for their children to use the money on their own bank accounts?

That's what debit cards are for.

Re:typical

[loufoque]

They're the same thing in most countries.

Re:typical

[DrXym]

Using real names doesn't make it harder for spammers or sockpuppets. Let's see how hard it is:

String makeName() { return firstNames[random(firstNames.length) + " " + lastNames[random(lastNames.length)]; }

Where firstNames and lastNames are a list of names harvested from census data, baby name lists or whatever. It's trivial to roll a fake name.

Re:typical

[Let's All Be Chinese]

You sir, are sorely mistaken. I don't know what the proper name is for this rhetorical device so let's call it the defeatist's fallacy. You're certainly not the only one to spout it, but if you think about the implications you ought to be able to see where it goes awry and why it's such a devious thing to say.

It goes a little like this: Because an arbitrary someone already knows your name, the only sensible thing you can do is shout your name from the rooftops, tag it everywhere, and be sure that every single little thing you do has your only real name attached to it. Yes, this is hyperbole, but think about why it's such a silly thing to say. What you say is silly in a similar fashion.

People do have multiple identities even with a more or less identical name attached to it. Some of us have multiple identities with differing names attached to it. It does not follow that everyone must automatically pack all their identities together for combined inspection, even though facebook thinks that's really neat for making them money.

If you share your entire life on facebook, then yes, adding a nickname isn't going to help much. But if you don't, well, then having seperate accounts with different names attached might help. That you'll also have to block "like" buttons everywhere and never ever use facebook's "identity services" (mostly a data gathering vehicle) for other sites (or only for a well-defined set only used in the context of that nickname's identity), perhaps even need differing proxy services for different accounts, is besides the point. Even the fact that you can often datamine multiple identities together with high probability is besides the point. That it amounts to a false sense of security in some sense, well, since internet privacy enforcement is mostly law based so far, we can turn it into legally actionable security should we need to.

I do keep separate this account, for example. If you'd like, try and find a "real" name to go with it, report back here. Even text similarity analysis with the entire web will not help you much. If you go back far enough you might find enough leads for some good-old humint legwork, but purely electronically you'll have a challenge yet.

While datamining is getting ever cheaper and is already much more feasible than most people, even techies, are aware, does not mean that it is free, and with some effort you can make it expensive enough to not be worthwhile. Though really but a last refuge, you can try for being a thorougly uninteresting needle in a needlestack.

Your argument goes that because the choice is of no use for people who dump too much information into facebook (directly or indirectly) in the first place, it's okay to remove the choice for every user of facebook. And that, my dear zazzel, just doesn't fly.

Bullshit-o-meter

[Mitreya]

The excuses just get better and better:

Any accounts set up under fake names will be removed from the site when discovered in order to keep the community safe, according to Facebook.

How does this keep community safe? Facebook is not a dating site.

Re:Bullshit-o-meter

[khallow]

Facebook is not a dating site.

And if it were, then fake names would provide better security than real ones.

Re:Bullshit-o-meter

[luther349]

the real answer is Any accounts set up under fake names will be removed from the site when discovered in order to keep the ad money roiling in.

Quite simple really

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes the CIA's job much more difficult with nicknames to spy on foreigners.

What's in a name?

[wvmarle]

One of the big questions is: what's in a name? What is someone's real name? When you introduce yourself to someone, you give a name. Is that your real name? Everyone will assume it is, without questioning it. But as a matter of fact I know people that go around by a nickname instead of their real name - usually a shorthand of their actual name, that they don't like, but a nickname nonetheless. A friend of mine once called me, introducing herself with her real name (which I heard before but never use - we always used a nickname), and basically I recognised her mostly by voice. The name on her passport is not the name her friends know best.

In Hong Kong it's even more so: all the locals have a Chinese name, written surname first - which sites like Facebook tend to mess up as they use the Western format of given name first. Many also go by an English name, which they actually use mostly in daily life, yet many never bother to register that English name on their passports. That makes it a nickname, yet also the name friends and business associate will know first and foremost.

For myself as my surname tends to be nearly impossible to pronounce for the locals, I usually just give them my first name to address me. That's hard enough to pronounce for them. And many will use that as were it my last name (adding "mister" in front). And for e.g. writing cheques, I must add my middle name as well - a name that I normally never use.

Then there is the issue of many people carrying the same name. My name is relatively unique do to a fairly rare surname, and my first name was not used much in my generation. So you see a name, but is that the John Doe you know from the bar, or another John Doe?

And finally names can be changed, legally, at will. Kim Dotcom from Megaupload fame is an example, and recently on Slashdot the mention of an American man who sold his name to the highest bidder, and for the next year he'll go by another name before assuming his original name again (or taking on yet another name).

It all comes down to a name being just a label, a way to recognise a person. Whether that label is the same as in that person's passport, that's not so relevant to their friends. They know a guy called "Bill", even when it says "William" in their passports. The argument that names must be "real names" to have people find their friends online, breaks down badly in those cases. A person is who they say they are, and no legal document or whatever is going to change that.

Why should Facebook have to do anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is not a required service. Nobody has to use it. Users are not paying for it.

I do not understand why Facebook should have to do anything. I think Germany telling a web site owner/developer that they have to make their system work a particular way is wrong. If Germans do not like sharing their real name online, then Germans should not join Facebook. Simple! How is it Facebook's problem that Germans want a feature that Facebook does not support?

I think it is great that Germany is trying to be on the cutting edge of protecting the privacy of its citizens; but this looks like another example of government over-reach. As a developer, I believe that I should be free to create websites, applications, etc. as I see fit.

Merry Christmas!

Re:Why should Facebook have to do anything?

[andrewbaldwin]

Facebook is not a required service. Nobody has to use it. Users are not paying for it.

I do not understand why Facebook should have to do anything. I think Germany telling a web site owner/developer that they have to make their system work a particular way is wrong. If Germans do not like sharing their real name online, then Germans should not join Facebook. Simple! How is it Facebook's problem that Germans want a feature that Facebook does not support?

Germany is not a required market for Facebook. Nobodyis forcing Facebook to operate there.

I do not understand why Germany should have to do anything. I think a web site owner/developer telling a country that they have to make their system work a particular way is wrong. If Facebook do not like the rules, then Facebook should not operate there. Simple! How is it Germany's problem that Germans have laws that Facebook does not support?

Fixed that for you

just wish my own country's cabinet ministers were as protective of its citizens and less easily bought off by big business buddies.

Umm no

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the reason. The advertising reason is false, the market can adjust for fake accounts etc as long as the number if real users does exist. The reason they oppose the law is that the facebook business model hinges on the dact that it is easy to find acquaintances and be in touch with people without having to remember their nicknames. It's why Facebook beat myspace, Friendster, Orkut, sixdegrees.com etc. the real name policy is what made Facebook a success.

One important detail missing

[mwissel]

One import detail is missing in TFA and on /.

They are currently trying to fine them 20.000€ for the violation of their order which is of course laughable. It might become more intersting if this goes to court because then the fines could increase rapidly.

That said, I am regarding the current move by ULD more as a kickstart for something bigger, because if

a) Facebook abides, which is highly unlikely, everybody wins
b) Facebook denies and pays 20k, then they are admitting to violate the law
c) Facebook denies and does not pay, it will go to court possibly to upper instances leading to a general ruling.

Mind you, the data protection officials in this small state in Germany's north have a history of pissing corporations to prove our rights, so I am very interested to see where this one goes ;-).

Here's a source for the 20k fine. You may run it through a translator service of your choice.
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Klarnamenzwang-Datenschuetzer-droht-Facebook-mit-Zwangsgeld-1770733.html