Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Ordered To End Its Real Name Policy In Germany

Posted by Unknown on from the semi-anonymous-cowards dept.

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."

10 of 471 comments (clear)

  1. typical by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:typical by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:typical by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:typical by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Fuck you and your baseless assertions.

    6. Re:typical by Let's+All+Be+Chinese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Quite simple really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. German Telemedia Act translation by rgbrenner · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Umm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.