Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
It makes the CIA's job much more difficult with nicknames to spy on foreigners.
I have a solution that is plain and fair for everyone:
Stop Using Facebook!
About 10% of my associates use fake names or pseudonyms on The Facebook with no consequences. What's stopping everyone else?
When will USA do the same? :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Seems like it's hurting Facebook's personal information sales... But good for them trying to fight the law; at least they have enough balls to say that they're unhappy with it. It sure beats all the worthless arguments people get into online who don't actually ever bother to do anything about it. That includes all the people who complain about Facebook's privacy policy/business model/etc but still use the damned thing.
I gave up on Facebook many years ago, but I've got their back on this one. People may have the right to use nicknames on the internet, but they certainly don't have the right to be on Facebook. Follow the rules or get lost.
Whether their policy is sound is another issue.
The law gives you the right to use pseudonyms online without being prosecuted for it. If a service provider decides that you can use its service only with your real name, that does not violate the law. You can always use a different service provider. Really, it's ridiculous what the governments are trying to regulate nowadays...
http://www.cgerli.org/fileadmin/user_upload/interne_Dokumente/Legislation/Telemedia_Act__TMA_.pdf
The important section is 13.6:
The service provider must enable the use of telemedia and payment for them to occur
anonymously or via a pseudonym where this is technically possible and reasonable. The
recipient of the service is to be informed about this possibility.
(emphasis mine)
Since it's obviously technically possible, Facebook will have to argue that it's unreasonable.
(A week later...)
Neither Weichert nor Facebook's privacy officers would comment on the record, but a member of the ULD who wished to stay anonymous said "We're glad we could come to this agreement. Facebook is a wonderful free service. We hope to continue to...accommodate this...wonderful...free service," as he caressed his monitor and looked over deposits to his bank accounts.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Those darned privacy laws... Gruss How is poor Facebook supposed to properly monetize its members, if they are allowed to hide their identities?
That the one thing missing from the US Constitution: an explicit right to privacy.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Facebook is not a dating site.
Facebook is very heavily used as a dating site.
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.
Facebook's real name policy complies with European data protection principles and Irish law, according to the social network.
Oh, well then, as long as it complies there, I guess it doesn't matter if it doesn't comply elsewhere.
Ahem. I know of one user who lists their names "Anal Medusa", an anagram of their legit name.
Does anyone really think that more than 70% of names on Facebook are for real?
Three Squirrels
To put you on track with my opinions on Facebook: I feel no desire to use it, it's a self maintaining address book for me. Now, I'm really wondering what gives Germany the right to say Facebook should allow nicknames, since when is it a users right to use Facebook by law? Is there a facebook.de? hosted in germany for germans? I dont think so. you use Facebook on free will on terms they define... you don't like it, go somewhere else!
"Hello Facebook, my name is Hans. Hans Steiner. Yes, even though I'm a woman. My parents hated me."
For every single new signup.
That'll fix 'em.
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!
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."
Yes, it is disregard for the law. And it is an attempt to manipulate the public opinion in their favor.
But the really funny thing is how unadjusted to the German market their spokesdroids are.
The argument "waste of taxpayers' money" is corporate propaganda used in the US. If government funds a law that provides oversight, it is "waste of taxpayers' money", if however things get funded by "private donations" politicians ought to be praised. (The latter is called corruption in other countries.)
In Germany people expect government to fund and enforce laws. The attitude is more like: I paid for it, I expect good service. So FB basically shot itself in the foot by claiming that government did its job.
- They should have used the "anonymity helps online predators" argument, since that one works in Germany too.
I imagine that Thilo has already unfriended Mark. Just wonder how much longer Thilo will have a profile? Though looks like his account is rather bereft of any content in the true German minimalist tradition, so just maybe it is just a doppelganger dupe profile, who knows.
Germans bureaucrats and law makers seem to be getting really up in arms at both Google and Facebook now that Microsoft has paid them off enough like the way they do in the States.
This is just another sponsored attack and you can bet that Microsoft is somewhere not to deep in the background egging on the German politicians with the usual grease. How else could the Germans have lost their minds and allowed ridiculous American software patents to stand.
Attacking Facebook and Google in the US would be suicide for Microsoft but as usual they are just doing it where a small amount of grease will get the biggest results. Germany has become the Utah and West Texas of Europe, shame on them! Angela Merkel is nothing more than a sheep in wolves' clothing. Same as Stephen Harper in Canada. No balls at all but at least Merkel has a real excuse.
I don't care much about the german law either, but forcing people to use his real name in the internet is just wrong. With your real name you can have people know everything about you, while you don't even know that exists. May pull other data from other sources, like your taxes, where you live, who is your family. Is unhealty and a big risk, probably the motives has ben made a law in germany (making it a law is a bit excesive, I think). Revealing your real name open the floodgates for anyone to easy reveal all other data, and start connecting the dots.
-Woof woof woof!
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.
As always, this is another example of how US companies sometimes fail to see that there are countries on this planet where data and privacy protection regulations do exist, and not just left to the companies to go by their own terms&conditions changing by the weather.
Facebook can fight this all they want, it still won't make them any more likeable to a lot of us.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
I used to know someone. A blogger. Political - his alignment doesn't matter. Liberal, conservative, works either way. He was a total fanatic though: Loyal to his chosen faction, and convicted that it was his patriotic duty to fight against those who threatened America with their disagreement.
He got into a feud one day with another blogger, operator of some blog I know little of beyond that it related to native american affairs. As part of this feud, he purchased a new domain name, taking the same name as the native american blog. There he started a series if posts, all under his 'un-american' enemies name, advocating for the legalisation of child porn and the abolition of age of consent laws. When I left the two were engaged in a blog comment shouting match, with Mr Asshole claiming that he now owned the rights to that name as he paid money for the domain and demanding the native american blog be closed down.
This person is not your common, garden-variety asshole. This person is the internet equivilent of the psychopathic axe-murderer. There are many like him - sometimes their trigger is politics, sometimes religion, or something as trivial as loyalty to a football team or a particular celebrity.
And facebook wants these nutters to have access to your real name. So when you post something that offends their sacred cause, they'll be the ones posting child porn in your name, writing to your boss with an anonymous tipoff about your prior convictions for possession of heroin and mailing your neighbours to inform them that a sex offender lives among them.
Why is this even a story? Is there anywhere that Facebook actually enforces this policy?
I've seen no evidence that facebook remotely cares about this. Several groups I belong to have people using business pages as personal accounts (Yes I'm sure your name is Division Marketing, nice to meet you) and trolls using clearly fake names (Rusty Mcfuckertrollson) and despite having been reported for months or nearly a year at this point, all the accounts are still permitted to spam these groups or harass members as the admin is absentee.
In fact I've rarely, if ever, seen facebook enforce a single policy. /b/ used to have threads devoted to listing your troll accounts so that they could friend each other to appear more legit. A long time ago you used to be able to report with an explanation. Even explaining that, and pointing out 100 grouped accounts were all fake? a month later when someone started the thread again, all the same accounts showed up.
People who need gifts and things in games and whose friends have all blocked them started making fake accounts to play those games. I knew someone who had like 25 on their friends list, all with clearly fake names, all friended each other, and all with some cartoon picture as the profile picture.
As far as I know they're all still there despite having been reported like 2 years ago.
If people in germany want to use fake names, just do it, facebook clearly doesn't care.
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
Oh please, come on....
There's no need for lame jokes with stupid made up names!
At least not as long as people like Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg are quite real....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg
bickerdyke
A tax-avoiding multinational from the USA (Facebook makes all kind of tricks to partially avoid and/or pay low taxes in Europe) lecturing the German regulators about the German tax payer's money ! What a hypocrisy ...
Specifically, last August, they required that the identities of file sharers must be turned over to rights holders.
So, for example, if someone posted a link to a file sharing site outside of German jurisdiction on their Facebook page, Facebook would be responsible for turning over the identity information for the nickname. At which point they would have a hell of a time complying with the court order to turn over the information they didn't have on file.
So, short of German tort reform, this severs their legal liability to shutting down the account in compliance with their Acceptable Use Policy, with the ability to reasonably claim ignorance that the person who registered the account did not do so in good faith compliance with said policy. The policy allows them to limit their legal liability.
Here's the Slashdot story on the German Federal Court of Justice ruling, which kind of trumps a decision by a privacy regulatory body with no actual legal teeth to contravene German Federal Court rulings, case law, or the German Federal law on which the ruling was based:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/15/0043256/german-court-isps-must-hand-over-file-sharer-info
The bottom line is that the privacy regulator is likely to lose in a court battle because of existing laws and rulings which contradict them.
I am pretty sure that Facebook could enforce an unambiguous identification when users are registering. Every email provider is doing this. What this court decision says is that users can not be forced to make their identity public to everyone else on facebook.
You mean Facebook enforces its real name policy? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?!?!
The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
We believe the orders are without merit,
Uh, sorry, but it's a law. How much more backing does it need to have merit in the eyes of FB?
Fact is, half the people in my friend list (yes, I am on FB, though I don't use it much, but lots of people don't read e-mail anymore these days, only their FB messages) already are using pseudonyms. Either fake names or pseudo-names, i.e. nicknames that follow the firstname-lastname system, but that's it.
I understand the idea. I do have an online game and ask people for their real names as well. However, I also respect their anonymity, if they want it. They can hide the name from everyone else, and in-game they will use their character names.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Fortunately, this kind of rhetoric doesn't work in Europe. Still, though, in essence they're saying; it's a waste of money for taxpayers and we'll help waste some more.
Nice company, but then again, we already knew that, didn't we?
A kraut by any other name, eh?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
This has everything to do with marketing and the value of information and jack to do with anything else. Accounts under pseudonyms simply aren't as valuable to marketers as people real names.
Marketers know people make fake accounts and don't want to have their ad dollars put into accounts for a 23 year old female who is actually a 37 year old man. By insisting on real names Facebook justifies increased ad rates about the value of their data. That is why Facebook will take a 'policy' change to court.
And your life might be also in danger. For example, it is not unheard in many countries that Muslim family have killed their son/daughter if they have found out that he/she is not heterosexual or is having sex before marriage.
And there are many other issues that might more or less destroy you life/family even in western countries, if your name is connected to some things that you might want to discuss with a pseudonym. For example, some diseases, mental health problems, being victim of (sexual) abuse as a child etc might be problematics for many people.
They cut off the rest of the Facebook spokesman's quote actually. The rest is: "Yeah, I know it literally says it clear as day, word for word that we're violating the law but come on, we're fucking Facebook! And how the hell are we supposed to make money off of 'Gueten Von Struedel' the dog and his fake account?"
If this is upheld, Facebook may drop free accounts and switch to a $0.01-Euro-per-year account, with a limit of one account per person and require that the person whose name AND ADDRESS is on the payment accept full responsibility for the account.
No account will be granted without a name and address.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
We think the US shouldn't enforce it's laws on companies operating outside the US (see pirate sites) but believe that the Germans have a right to dictate the policies of a US company.
Good on Facebook. It sets a horrible precedent. If Germans don't want to use their real names on Facebook, they are free to not use Facebook.
Work Safe Porn
"a waste of German taxpayers' money" ...so let's start an appeal that will force the government to defend the ruling, hence wasting more taxpayer's money? Makes total sense...
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
1. We believe the orders are without merit,
2. a waste of German taxpayers' money and
3. we will fight it vigorously,
1. Don't think too much. If the lay says lump, you jump. Either that, or you go to an other country with different laws. (Or do "I AM THE LAW")
2. HOW can it be that fb wastes taxpayers money, unless they will do that by doing 3.
3. Stop wasting my money!
Privacy is terrorism.
Hmm.
For 20 years the standard advice especially for Minors (Think of the Kiddies!!) was to "never give out identifiable info online". So when did that suddenly change when they turn 19 and join Facebook?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
A few questions:
Is that an overall fine, or per-incident.
Also, if FB pays the fine, but continues with "business as usual", then I could see a fairly quick escalation.
Fines should generally be
"you didn't stop doing X on time, so now you pay a penalty and need to stop NOW"
Not
"you didn't stop X, so here's a fine. Now keep on going"
Unfortunately it seems that in many cases it really amounts to the latter.
why do you think, children do not start having fb accounts as soon as they can use a computer and read/type enought to be able to use a site like facebook?
Here in the US, the difference between a debit card and a credit card is that a debit card can only be used to spend money which is actually sitting in the attached bank account, and that money is immediately deducted from that bank account. You are not being loaned any money on credit, you are just spending money you already have. So if you have $2,000 in your account, you can spend up to $2,000 with your debit card, which will be deducted immediately, and then it will decline further transactions.
A credit card, on the other hand, is a kind of revolving loan. You can owe the issuing bank up to your credit limit at any one time and pay it back whenever you like -- though of course you will be charged interest for delaying payment beyond the monthly bill due date, and there is a (usually trivial) minimum amount you must pay toward your balance each month. So if you have $2,000 in your account, and a $20,000 credit line, you can spend up to $20,000 on the card before it declines transactions... and then, unless you have some windfall coming in before the next bill's due date, you will only be able to pay off at most $2,000 of it (since that's all the money you have sitting around), and will have to carry an $18,000 balance, which will accumulate interest.
Often times the two types of cards are issued by the same banks and accepted by the same locations (modern debit cards with e.g. Visa or MasterCard logos are accepted anywhere that takes a Visa or MasterCard credit card), and you can use a credit card much like a debit card, never spending more than you have in the bank and paying off the balance in full each month and thus accruing no interest. But the credit card gives you much more power and flexibility... and consequently a lot more rope to hang yourself with if you're not responsible with money.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
like two or three years ago but that fight was already lost back then, it's a waste of ad-revenue to battle it, turn your talented noses somewhere else because this ain't happening, not for facebook, not for google, not for anyone. It does however surprise me it's zee germans coming up first. Merkels shining light must have ignited something there.
maybe they're just one of the few european countries not too busy keeping head above water to deal with stuff like this, whatever it is, consider it final , it's a win for personal rights, nicknames are as old as the network itself afaik, who the hell but marketing scum could think they could change that ?
fire a bit more in the marketing department, that's where the money goes to waste probably
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
If I wanted to I could legally change my name to trigpoint and have it on my passport, driving license and credit card. Most legal name changes follow the firstname last name principle, but they don't have to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deed_poll