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

[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

[tlhIngan]

if its such a wast of time and money then why are you going to wast more time and money fighting it,

It's a waste of *taxpayer* money. For facebook, though, it isn't a waste because it means their ads are worth less because of the German law, so spending money to ensure that they have high-quality data to sell advertisers is worth it. Remember, it's good for their customers if everyone can lead to a real person.

Of course, how long until Google's G+ falls under the same restrictions? After all, G+ linking your name is getting more insidious across Google sites now, like say, replying to a YouTube comment now uses your real name.

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

[YttriumOxide]

But wait, they don't have freedom of speech or the right to bear arms in Germany so how can this be?

Article 5 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) would disagree with you on freedom of speech (specifically: freedom of expression). It states:

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

There are of course limits to this as indicated by the second statement; but I've yet to see a country where this is not the case. Even in the much flaunted "free" USA, Wikipedia informs me:

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity, defamation, incitement, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, fighting words, fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as making false statements (lying) in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government, speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information, false advertising, perjury, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, and patents. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions.

Overall, it seems similar.

Re:typical

[camperdave]

It is this very policy which stops me from using Facebook. If I can't log in with an alias, I won't log in at all. Plus, until you log in, you can't see what Facebook is all about, so I don't even know if Facebook is worth connecting to in the first place.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

All of my sock puppets have their own facebook accounts. They all love it. They like to set up meetings via facebook. Rick an Pauline are in a facebook relationship.

Re:typical

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Fuck you and your baseless assertions.

Re:typical

[wvmarle]

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).

No need.

There is no need to even have a login at a site to be able to pay with your credit card. Or you could log in using your (real) name, and use the credit card of another person.

Those things are no problem for web sites, if only because the name as written on my credit card does not match the name that I normally use (my middle name is included, and the order is different).

Re:typical

[Rogerborg]

More, in most civilised jurisdictions, you or anyone else can use a "nickname" perfectly legally for most purposes, as long as the intent isn't to defraud. The scale runs all the way from "McName -> MacName" through "Elizabeth -> Liz" to "Raymond Luxury-Yacht -> Throatwobbler Mangrove".

Re:typical

[sjames]

The actual friends I might want to connect with would know the alias is me. Potential employers, advertisers, and other stalkers wound not. Sounds good!

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

[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.

Quite simple really

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Quite simple really

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Do I get moderated flamebait for saying the Earth is round too?

Re:Quite simple really

[greg1104]

That the US government is spying on social networks is fact shown multiple places. And only the EFF seems to be doing anything to slow it.

German Telemedia Act translation

[rgbrenner]

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.

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.

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.

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.