Facebook Ordered To End Its Real Name Policy In Germany 471
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."
typical (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite simple really (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes the CIA's job much more difficult with nicknames to spy on foreigners.
Re:Quite simple really (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Quite simple really (Score:5, Informative)
That the US government is spying on social networks is fact [huffingtonpost.com] shown [foxnews.com] multiple [guardian.co.uk] places [networkworld.com]. And only the EFF seems to be doing anything [eff.org] to slow it.
Re:typical (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.
Umm no (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.
Re:typical (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway I think it's stupid to force such people to use their real name since there is absolutely no way to verify it is their real name. If I found myself forced to use a "real" name on Facebook I would just pick John Smith, Paul Brown or something so common that it is utterly useless information to either Facebook, or for the people they might hope for me to connect to. I would be literally lost in a sea of John Smiths. Tens of thousands of them, possibly hundreds of thousands of them. Short of them requiring all users to verify their ID with government servers or documentation, there is no way they can prevent it.
Maybe that's what Germans should do register their protest - register accounts using variations of the top 3 surnames, and boy/girl firstnames and render the service useless. I wonder how long it would be before the next time they logged in Facebook offered a "would you like to use a unique alias?" option.
Re:typical (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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.
Re:typical (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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.
Re:typical (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Children have credit cards too.
Re:typical (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:typical (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Essentially all of non-UK Europe.
I can only search in German, but that shows a German child can only get a prepaid 'credit' card, exactly the same as a British child.
That isn't a credit contract though. Can you get that in Germany if you're under 18 (or 16)? I don't think you can in the UK (under 18), and I don't think you can get a loan either.
Re: (Score:3)
In Sweden 7-year olds can get Visa/MasterCard debit cards.
Debit cards and credit cards look the same but they're completely different things.
Re:typical (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck you and your baseless assertions.
Re:typical (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Of course you do, but you don't have a right to use Facebook's services.
Re:typical (Score:4, Insightful)
"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 [mynameisme.org] and Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? [wikia.com].
Re:typical (Score:4, Informative)
I'm curious (really) if German ecommerce sites have to accept nicknames along with credit card numbers
User rgbrenner covered this further down in the thread:
"
http://www.cgerli.org/fileadmin/user_upload/interne_Dokumente/Legislation/Telemedia_Act__TMA_.pdf [cgerli.org]
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.
"
Mods: Reward the original post, not me. rgbrenner did the research. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
People need to quit repeating that myth.
Scientists say, "Myth confirmed." [nytimes.com]
Many dickheads are quite happy to be a mong under their own name.
This is also true.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why they wanted a unique cell phone number to identify my account...
Which is when I stopped using Facebook (about 7-8 months ago).
Re:typical (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Since Facebook is meant to help you stay in touch with your friends, signing up with an alias is not going to give you a good idea of what the site is all about. Nevertheless, you can sign up with an alias, and the only risk you run is having them delete your account. I've only seen that happen once, to a friend who had a second account. All my friends who used an alias on their only account still have it.
Re:typical (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Even then, they can still uniquely identify you by the fake name. But I think they've gotten into trouble with people using fake names and pretending to be people they aren't.
If you're friends with Cowboy Neal, but he's not on facebook, and I go and make an account under the name Cowboy Neal, take his photos and use that try and befriend you and get you to divulge personal information about your relationship with Cowboy Neal that's hard to prosecute (or police) without a real name policy. Because I have as much right to call myself Cowboy Neal as Johnathan Pater if we can all use nicknames equally. And how do you show that I'm not cowboy neal who just lost his account info.
Facebook is also trying to convert 'likes' and other marketing products into real tangible things. If you and I both 'like' borderlands 2 then gearbox can see that we liked the page. If we can be fake people that poses a problem. If they want to bill you for a service (points to be used in online games) they need a valid billing name to be able to charge you, and of course eventually they want you to be a paying customer.
Probably some of it is purely practical. Trying to keep track of one friend using a kind of fake name isn't so bad. Trying to keep track of several of them, that use names which have no relation to their actual name seriously limits the usability of facebook. I, now about 15 years out of highschool, have enough trouble trying to sort out women with married names (15 years and kids change appearance a lot) and a lot of times I can't really tell if it's a person I know or not. Facebook doesn't work if it's trying to be private but social, they are opposing goals. At least in the real world, and with people who only sometimes use facebook and where you can regularly have several hundred friends, all of whom are people you actually know and wish to keep in touch with. Facebook lives and breathes on your ability to find people, if enough people become impossible to find or keep track of it starts to lose its functionality. Of course that need to find the actual correct person is the greatest gift to stalkers in history. Unfortunately.
I have lots of my (university) students befriend me on facebook, and being in CS and engineering a lot of them are foreign students. Their names on paper are usually names appropriate to their country of origin. But they then try and use western sounding names either part way through or after graduate. And quite honestly, 2 years after you were my student as Xi Li, now being David Lee, I have no fucking clue who you are. That's not even on facebook necessarily, that's just trying to keep track of records of who people actually are. Take a kid out of a classroom, feed him properly for 2 years, give him a real job and some decent clothes and then give me a thumbnail sized photo and I'm not going to to figure out which name I knew you under.
Re: (Score:2)
Third paragraph, last sentence 'they' as in Facebook, not gearbox. I mashed up a couple of thoughts sorry.
Re:typical (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Most real names are not all that unique in the world. There are, no doubt thousands of people who have just as much right to call themselves by the name given to me at birth as I do (because it was given to them at birth as well). The same is likely true for you.
Re: (Score:3)
depends, if you go with something like sjames, sjames7197 or sjames500 how am I supposed to know which of those is you? (e.g. on twitter).
Arab names, like the belovedly generic Syed Ali Abbas are annoyingly anonymous everywhere, as are a lot of the particularly short chinese names.
Re: (Score:3)
So why didn't you use your real name for your /. username? There was nothing stopping you (except perhaps the need to add a few numbers at the end to make it unique, oh wait you did that anyway).
People are capable of behaving themselves while anonymous and of behaving like total assholes while acting under their real names (just look at politicians). And there are reasons for wanting to be anonymous in any country. Germany for example is thinking about banning the neo-nazi party, which is not a very democra
Re:typical (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that this seems to actually be a law which serves the people, rather than corporations .
Re:typical (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:typical (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Germany has hate speech laws, so not really free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
And the US has obscenity and defamation .. so .. not really free speech there neither.
Re: (Score:3)
If you ever had heared a "hate speech" you would not call it a "valid opinion" but defamation, insults and false accusations.
You know you need three terms (and likely more) for what is generally defined as "hate speech".
Re: (Score:3)
We have got freedom of speech here alright, no right to bear arms, though, because there are no bears left except in zoos.
Re: (Score:2)
Also I don't see why anyone except the bears should have a right to their arms.
Re:typical (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Germans have a very different attitude towards corporate power and influence. It seems almost quaint.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/world/europe/berlin-tour-raises-awareness-on-lobbying.html [nytimes.com]
Berlin Journal
And on Your Left, Behind Those Walls, Lobbyists Are at Work
By NICHOLAS KULISH
November 22, 2012
(Timo Lange, campaigner LobbyControl, gives tours to sites of lobbyists. German Brewers Association, cigarette lobby. German Chemical Industry Association. Germans suspicous of propaganda and paid advertising. Money in campaigns is seen not as free speech but as buying access. Merkel lives a modest life.)
“The problem is the linkage between economic power and political power,” said Daniela Haug.
“We are very thin-skinned when it comes to any form of propaganda,” Claas Lorenz, 25, a student on the tour, said in a succinct reference to Germany’s Nazi history. “We had very bad experiences with it in our past.”
Andrea Römmele, a professor at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, said: “Money in campaigns in the United States is freedom of speech; it’s seen as a way of expressing oneself. In Germany, giving money in politics is always seen as trying to buy access.”
German attitudes toward politics and money help explain the enduring appeal of Ms. Merkel, who still lives in the apartment she got before she became chancellor, and who hikes on vacation. “Merkel is so beloved for her sober, unglamorous style of governing,” said Frank Decker, a professor of political science at the University of Bonn. “With her, you would never imagine that she might use politics to become rich.”
The Christian Democrats
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, a German regulator in a tiny state thinks they can regulate an American website ????
In what possible way is this enforceable?
Worst case, just terminate the service to 1 million German in the affected state and see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the shareholders are going to love that "cut off your nose to spite your face" policy and start wondering what other countries FB is going to bail out of. They already don't have enough customers to justify their IPO price -- to actively reduce them seems a rather unwise policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's understandable if Facebook operates a business in Germany, but if it's a US website, surely they can tell the Germans to stick it.
I don't want Saudis or Egyptians deciding what a website not on their soil is able to do either.
Re: (Score:3)
They DO operate a business in Germany. Advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They win a lot of government cooperation this way, and they wouldn't have been able to resist these governments anyway. It's good business.
Re:typical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
What? That's not what they said, they said that the order is not grounded in the law and that the legislature never passed anything requiring that. Part of the way that "legislature, laws, and law enforcement" works is that when an order exceeds the authority of the person making the order or is based on a mistaken interpretation, it can be challenged and the court will figure out who is correct. Lots of good caselaw (at least here in the US) was made that way -- not by claiming that the law is wrong, but t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like I hope Facebook pulls out of Germany entirely. This is what happens when you try to govern an open, international forum by fencing yourself in.
FB failed to adjust their droids (Score:2)
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 p
Re:typical (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
It doesn't use your real name. It offers to do so, but you can refuse it.
Re:typical (Score:4, Informative)
That German subsidiary company that handles their advertising must not exist then. Or youre fucking clueless.
Re: (Score:3)
That "german subsidiary" is based in Ireland. that's not a problem with the economic union.
Bullshit-o-meter (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook is not a dating site.
And if it were, then fake names would provide better security than real ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How does a fake name cause an issue there?
Users are followed and profiled by other means than their names: by the content of their comments and posts, groups they subscribe to, "like"s, other web sites (with Facebook "like" button in place) they visit, and probably a few other means that I can't think of.
The actual name attached to the account should be quite irrelevant in that matter. It's merely psychological - a "real name" (whatever that may mean) would denote an individual, and a "fake name" not? Most
Re: (Score:2)
Cross-referencing. Facebook clients don't rely on facebook alone as a source of information. Requiring real names makes it possible to identify common users between Facebook accounts and things like Amazon's shopping records, ebay accounts, store loyalty cards, things like that.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole concept of "real name" is rather difficult to define. Even discounting the likes of musicians, actors, author
Re: (Score:3)
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.
They mean safe for them to use the data to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. (Score:2)
Facebook is not a dating site.
Facebook is very heavily used as a dating site.
Re: (Score:2)
No one said people need to be able to change their account name a hundred thousand times after creating the account. If you can't associate a single nickname with a single person, then I'd be surprised if you could actually associate regular names with individual people either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence the mob is trafficking drugs?
What about USA? (Score:3)
When will USA do the same? :P
Of course it's without merit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I did not know that there is a second service provider that did allow you to log on to facebook.com.
Like to share its web address?
Probably you don't understand what a/the law is?
If the law allows you to use a pseudonyme online then the service provider has no right to define a term stating OTHERWISE! Because exactly that indeed VIOLATES the law. Thats how a damn law works!
German Telemedia Act translation (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cgerli.org/fileadmin/user_upload/interne_Dokumente/Legislation/Telemedia_Act__TMA_.pdf [cgerli.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is indeed one of the big issues with the Internet: it is so international, that existing legal frameworks and international legal agreements do not usually apply.
Until the Internet, most services were linked somehow to a geographic location. You buy a book from your local book store, if there is an issue then you go back to that book store, and claim your rights under your local laws. However if you order a book from Amazon in the US, and there is an issue, which law applies? The US law of the warehous
Re: (Score:2)
And how are they going to arrange payment, without breaking the anonymity?
Re: (Score:2)
They won't have to, since performing financial transactions anonymously would presumably be considered unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the point entirely.
AC suggests to allow users to have an pseudonym (aka anonymous) account against payment. Yet the payment will negate the anonymity.
A week later... (Score:2)
(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.
Darned privacy laws... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy means you're allowed to hide what you do. Not necessarily to hide who you are.
So requiring real names does not, as such, infringe privacy - if you put stuff on-line for everyone to see, there is no reason to expect any privacy. If you don't want the world to know all about your life, don't put it on-line, keep it for yourself.
The only thing a "right to privacy" may help you with is that if you mark certain posts on Facebook as something like "private", "invite only" or "friends only", that Facebook
What's in a name? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
And then, they'll take their 2nd or 3rd name, double it up, and use that as a Chinese nickname as well as having an English nickname.
i.e. Wong Tse Mei could be known to Chinese friends as "Mei Mei", English speaking friends as "Sally"...
And when in North America, they'll use the English name, sometimes use the 2nd & 3rd name's initials (sometimes not, sometimes the whole words), and the surname (which, like you said, comes first usually) in official documents.
Gets confusing fast! "What combination of 4
Re: (Score:3)
i.e. Wong Tse Mei could be known to Chinese friends as "Mei Mei", English speaking friends as "Sally"...
Indeed they do it like that, but the "Mei Mei" version is rather colloquial and primarily used for children, and the English name "Sally" would be used by most Chinese speaking friends as well. The short-hand version would more likely become "Ah-Mei" - it is so often that I have been told to "ask for ah-something" when I was looking for say the person in charge of a scrap yard, or a construction site, or shop.
And Wong being the surname, on many Western web sites this name would become "Tse Mei Wong" (I have
Compliance (Score:3)
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.
"real" "names" (Score:2)
Does anyone really think that more than 70% of names on Facebook are for real?
German citizens can solve it themselves. (Score:2)
"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.
Why should Facebook have to do anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Why should Facebook have to do anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Your name on the internet (Score:2)
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 r
regulations and laws (Score:3)
Facebook can fight this all they want, it still won't make them any more likeable to a lot of us.
I like this law. (Score:3)
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.
One important detail missing (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [heise.de]
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org]