9 ms·

Germany orders changes to Facebook real name policy

83 points by denzil_correa 14y ago

marknutter 14y ago
This is ridiculous. If you don't like services that require your full name, don't use them. It's clear people like those services. The biggest appeal of Facebook is that you can connect with people from your past by typing their names into search or being connected to them through your current FB friends. If half the people on FB have pseudonyms it will make the process of reconnecting with old friends and family frustrating to the point of uselessness.
- joelthelion 14y ago
  >If you don't like services that require your full name, don't use them Except Facebook has a monopoly, minors are using it, and so on. Face it, in Europe we have a different understanding of the role of the State and if you want to do business in here, you'll have to abide by our rules.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    > Except Facebook has a monopoly No they don't, especially not in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StudiVZ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StudiVZ
    - trin_ 14y ago
      they do. studivz plays ther same role os/2 and or anything else played in the microsoft monopoly era. they are at this point a niche site that is almost dead.
    - rimantas 14y ago
      And how about Russia with vkontakte (vk.com)?
    - darklajid 14y ago
      Really? Seriously? "StudiVZ" was a lame (and, if I remember correctly, bit-by-bit when they started) clone of FB, which won here for a while. Probably because they actually had a local interface and added local universities, schools and whatnot. Since then FB expanded to Germany, StudiVZ is for all purposes dead and obsolete. I don't even know how you come up with that example. It's like pointing to Myspace or whatever came before that.
      - mseebach 14y ago
        Both StudiVZ and MySpace are examples of how Facebook isn't a monopoly. So is Twitter and e-mail and Google Plus. And PHPBB and Diaspora. Facebook has a monopoly on being Facebook. For everything else, there's ample competition. The fact that Facebook is more popular than the competition doesn't make it a monopoly.
        darklajid 14y ago
        I had the same argument over here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4938204 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4938204 Would you consider Windows as a monopoly? There are alternatives.. If your answer is 'No', the EU seems to disagree with you (and might on the FB case, we'll see). If your answer is 'Yes', where's the difference?
        mseebach 14y ago
        Windows is more of a monopoly in the sense that there is much heavier lock-in: It's not trivial to write an application in such a way that it works equally well under Windows and the alternatives. The lock-in to Facebook is much, much lighter. But more importantly, being a monopoly (however such is defined) is not in itself illegal, and it's not a carte blanche for publicity-hungry politicians to hand-wavily demand to control random details of a company's operations. What is illegal is monopolistic behaviour, to leverage your dominance in one market to unfairly gain an advantage in another. That is what Microsoft did and was punished for (rather than merely being a monopoly), and what Google might be getting in trouble for.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    Your definition of a monopoly in Europe must be very different than ours.
    - belorn 14y ago
      Monopoly is reached, when there is a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods. If the service facebook provides is access and contact between people, any substitute (ie, proof that there is no monopoly) would have to be near the size of facebook to qualify. How many other viable substitutes are there that reach 30% of the population? Any at 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%? face it, facebook has a monopoly right now in regard to a service proving access and contact between people.
      - marknutter 14y ago
        uh.. skype? twitter? reddit? aim? gmail? google plus?
        darklajid 14y ago
        You're ignoring the root cause of this discussions. Which service that you're listing has a 'real name' policy? Skype: Pseudonym (this one) Twitter: Pseudonym (the same) Reddit: Pseudonym (the same) AIM: Uhm.. Nope. Guess allows pseudonyms? Not sure GMail: No restrictions either G+: Same as FB, hopefully the next target on the list of this group. So - most of your list aren't playing that 'give us your real name and be prepared to hand over your ID to prove that fact' game with their users. Which is what the discussion is about. Of the services that do this, FB clearly is the leader. Or in a monopoly-esque situation.
        marknutter 14y ago
        You're shifting the issue. We're not debating which large service is requiring real names (btw, G+ has the same requirement), we're debating whether or not Facebook is a monopoly. By your logic, I could make the argument for any service being a monopoly by being specific about the type of service they are supposedly monopolizing. For instance, Twitter has a monopoly on microblogging services that use birds in their marketing.
  - oleganza 14y ago
    If you dig into definition of monopoly, you'll be surprised that everybody has a monopoly on themselves. Important thing is that Facebook does not have monopoly on you, but your government does. If monopoly is evil, then deal with your government first. If it is not, then why worry about Facebook?
    - weavejester 14y ago
      It might have escaped your notice, but a lot of people over the past few thousand years have worried about the power of governments, and a lot of effort has been expended in trying to limit this power through laws. Any time you have an uneven distribution of power, be it a government or a corporate monopoly, you need to have some safeguards in place to ensure that power is not abused.
    - chmod775 14y ago
      I deal with my government every time I vote. Plus the comparison is wrong IMHO. Governmental power is a resource over which a party can have a monopoly. But currently no party has. I admit that I fail to see the point of your post. Might be just me.
      - RickHull 14y ago
        The state has monopoly on the use of violence, among other things. Just because leadership may change does not alter this fact. Would you deny the fact of a corporate monopoly simply because their leadership may change?
      - chmod775 14y ago
        @RickHull Please don't confuse a state with its government. Ignoring the military, only 1 of the 3 separated powers is allowed to use violence. That aside. There's a huge difference between a company and a government. Because I only get to decide on the politics of the latter. But luckily my government has jurisdiction over companies operating in the country in question, giving me also some power over them. So. To make this clear: A government having control over people without the people having control over it: A potential problem. A company having a monopoly and therefore control over people without the people having control over it: A potential problem. Luckily the people get to control the first, which in turn has control over the latter.
  - fauigerzigerk 14y ago
    There is no consensus in Europe that the role of government includes protecting us against our own deliberate choices. Particularly not against choices that we can reverse any time we want. And the law we're talking about is not a European law. It's a German law. I'm glad we do have a European law that mandates websites to delete personal data at the request of users. That gives us the freedom to leave if we no longer agree with the rules a website makes. I actually deleted my Facebook account partly because they asked "friends" to report "friends" who didn't use their real name. I also don't like to be mislead and spied upon in the most egregious ways possible. Facebook is only a monopoly if all my friends decide to enforce it by keeping me out of the loop if I'm not on Facebook. Real friends don't do that.
    - rmc 14y ago
      I'm glad we do have a European law that mandates websites to delete personal data at the request of users. No, that law hasn't come in yet. It's planned to come in. Current EU data protection law requires that companies delete/correct data that's incorrect, and they can only store information if it's proportionate to what they're doing, and if you've consented at the start. But as ar as I know, EU law/directives does not allow you (yet!) to be "forgotten".
      - summerdown2 14y ago
        Principle 5 of the UK Data Protection Act says: http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/the_principles.aspx http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_... Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/information_standards/principle_5.aspx http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_... It's not the same as a right to be forgotten, but it does say companies need to think about (and presumably be prepared to argue in court) their need for data. > In some cases, you may need to keep personal data so you can defend possible future legal claims. However, you could still delete information that could not possibly be relevant to such a claim. Unless there is some other reason for keeping it, personal data should be deleted when such a claim could no longer arise.
  - rmc 14y ago
    I don't think monopoly or not status matters to data protection law, which this might fall under. Sure, the USA (say) with anti-monopoly law but no data protection law, this might be an important point, but in EU we have monopoly law and data protection law.
- beedogs 14y ago
  Half the people I know on Facebook have changed their displayed name to some combination of their first, last, middle, or other name. They still appear to be 'valid' names, but I reckon they'd get asked to change them if Facebook ever demanded they provide proof of identification. Not sure what to make of your claim that it's "clear" people "like" Facebook because of this requirement. People put up with it, perhaps, but I know plenty of normal everyday people on FB who aren't really playing by the rules.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    If people going through the hassle of signing up for your service isn't an indication that they like your service, we're all in a lot of trouble here at HN.
    - PedroCandeias 14y ago
      Signups are no indication of actual usage http://allthingsd.com/20121217/andreessen-and-mixpanel-call-for-an-end-to-bullshit-metrics/ http://allthingsd.com/20121217/andreessen-and-mixpanel-call-...
      - marknutter 14y ago
        They are for sure an indication of initial interest. And given Facebook's retention and engagement rates, I think it's fairly obvious that most people like the service. That's not to say they like the company Facebook, but they obviously like keeping in touch with their friends and family using Facebook's service.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    The fact that it's clearly possible to use a pseudonym on Facebook makes the German complaint even more silly. But the fact remains that Facebook has decided to have this rule because they believe it makes the product better. That decision is theirs to make, and people can flaunt it (as many do) or decide not to join.
- darklajid 14y ago
  "If half the people on FB have pseudonyms it will make the process of reconnecting with old friends and family frustrating" Why? How so? And - why do we care? If users want to choose their name, how is it relevant if it's frustrating for _other_ people to be unable to locate them? How many people are searching the ex-gf/-bf by name to stalk and see what they're up to? Isn't it very frustrating as well if people got married and - whoa - just give Facebook their _current_ 'real name'. You wouldn't be able to find them. Maybe the service should require you to list the maiden name, blocking you for failing to do so? And - frankly: I know more people on FB with 'fake' names than with 'real' ones. Family, friends, random acquaintances, 70% don't use their real name. The range is from fantasy names (like, obviously invalid/~random~), to play on words/phrases (localized variants of 'Some Dude' or similar) to the braindead exercise of writing your name backwards (you'd be there as "Kram Rettun"). Against the TOS? Yeah, sure. Impossible to enforce for localized jokes or seemingly valid names anyway. And quite frankly, if it's 'frustrating' for people that want to search for old contacts is really, really not interesting _for those users_.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    > Why? How so? And - why do we care? If users want to choose their name, how is it relevant if it's frustrating for _other_ people to be unable to locate them? Well, because that's the way Facebook works. They made a decision early on to require real names because most of the value of Facebook hinged upon the ease of finding friends and family. Imagine if the white pages allowed people to use pseudonyms. It wouldn't be worth much, would it? > How many people are searching the ex-gf/-bf by name to stalk and see what they're up to? Dunno, lots? Who cares? > And - frankly: I know more people on FB with 'fake' names than with 'real' ones. Family, friends, random acquaintances, 70% don't use their real name. The range is from fantasy names (like, obviously invalid/~random~), to play on words/phrases (localized variants of 'Some Dude' or similar) to the braindead exercise of writing your name backwards (you'd be there as "Kram Rettun"). This is purely anecdotal but I would put the rate of actual names used among my friends at around 99%. Now, granted, that may because I haven't found the acquaintances from my past who do use fake names, but that only bolsters my point. If most people used fake names then a large part of the appeal of Facebook would dissipate. > Isn't it very frustrating as well if people got married and - whoa - just give Facebook their _current_ 'real name'. You wouldn't be able to find them. Maybe the service should require you to list the maiden name, blocking you for failing to do so? Facebook has a solution for the maiden name problem, btw, (by allowing users to enter an "alternate name")[https://www.facebook.com/help/131728300237162/ https://www.facebook.com/help/131728300237162/], and again, this is purely anecdotal, but I see a very high percentage of people in my network taking advantage of this feature. I would wager it's because most people want to be found by their friends and family. > Against the TOS? Yeah, sure. Impossible to enforce for localized jokes or seemingly valid names anyway. And quite frankly, if it's 'frustrating' for people that want to search for old contacts is really, really not interesting _for those users_. I don't personally have a problem with people circumventing Facebook's TOS and I'd gather that Facebook probably doesn't care all that much either. What I do have a problem with is a government arbitrarily setting a TOS for a website that people can choose whether or not to use.
- rmc 14y ago
  However if the law says that you must be able to use them without giving your full name then the service must abide by that.
- awayand 14y ago
  |If you don't like services that require your full name, don't use them. Similarly, if you don't like to provide pseudonyms, don't do business in Germany. Power always does what it wants, this time it is the German government with the upper hand.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    So how exactly do you not do business in Germany if you're a website like Facebook? Do you just cancel all the accounts of people who listed their home country as Germany? What about people who were born in Germany but don't live there anymore? If I'm visiting Germany, will Facebook not work for me? And how exactly will Germany's public respond if they simply block them from using their service? I would wager people would be fairly upset.
    - jeltz 14y ago
      One thing you can do is not starting a German subsidiary like Facebook has done. That removes any excuse of being a foreign internet based company.
    - div 14y ago
      Content sites like Hulu, Netflix, Youtube seem to have no problem restricting access based on ip. This isn't 100%, but it would effectively block everyone in my family except me.
    - darklajid 14y ago
      Your point could be equally made about the real name policy. How exactly do you enforce this policy? Do you just delete all people with 'wrong' names? What about people that changed their name (marriage, legal change of name) and didn't update the site? If you'd block Germany, I'd guess there'd be a quick replacement ready (we had FB clones in the past. They are barren and empty because FB won, but I'm pretty sure that most people would Just Move On (TM). I don't expect riots over Facebook and Farmville).
      - marknutter 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- unkoman 14y ago
  Google VP Bradley Horowitz (in a Google+ post on January 24, 2012) announced that Google is updating its policy "to broaden support for established pseudonyms [1]. [1] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+BradleyHorowitz/posts/SM5RjubbMmV https://plus.google.com/u/0/+BradleyHorowitz/posts/SM5RjubbM...
sovok 14y ago
Maybe not that big of a deal. If Facebook doesn't comply, they only have to pay 20000€: http://translate.google.de/translate?twu=1?sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.golem.de/news/abschaffung-der-klarnamenpflicht-uld-gibt-facebook-noch-zwei-wochen-zeit-1212-96410.html http://translate.google.de/translate?twu=1?sl=de&tl=en&#...
- Xylakant 14y ago
  Maybe more of a deal is that this is the first step in the legal battle. Now Facebook can appeal or ignore but that opens up to get a court injunction all the way up to the european courts until you get a decision on the highest level. Without a first injunction, none of that would be possible.
- PhantomLobe 14y ago
  Per violation. If they keep violating they keep paying and under my limited knowledge of the German law, repeated violations can go criminal.
- jeltz 14y ago
  That is only their first fine. If German law is similar to Swedish law here nothing prevents future fines if FB just chose to ignore the ruling and pay the fine.
Hopka 14y ago
It's interesting because there are several German social networks (XING, StudiVZ, wer-kennt-wen, ...) that also do not allow their users to use pseudonyms. As far as I know, none of them have been ordered to change their policies.
- sdoering 14y ago
  Yepp. As good, as one might find this move from the German regulators, one must wonder, why only one network is targeted. But that is nothing new here in Germany. Most often it is one symbolic network (often times Google), that is the target. So one might suspect, that this is nothing more than symbolic policy. The data-protecting people in our government are toothless kittens, they have no real influence and these moves seem to me only to be made, to show, that they are still there and to justify their existence. Sad to see, but there does not seem to be any real chance, that this will change.
  - drucken 14y ago
    So, this "decree" has no meaning even if fought in a German legal court?
    - rmc 14y ago
      Depends. Some countries empower the local data protection commission to make binding injunctions forcing a company/person to do/not do a thing. I know Ireland has this. No idea of Germany, but presume it's similar.
      - sdoering 14y ago
        They might force FB to do this. But having seen what happens here with Google or all the other cases, I really doubt their "power" or will to do much more, than symbolic policy.
        rmc 14y ago
        You know the Irish Data Protection Commissioner force Facebook to make some privacy related changes, right?
jamestc 14y ago
Luckily the thing that all websites are missing when they ask you to fill in a name field is the ability to verify whether or not it is actually your name.
feint 14y ago
Shouldn't Facebook be allowed to do what it likes? Regulating how an internet company chooses to run its product is very worrying.
- VMG 14y ago
  Most people will respond with "law is law". The more interesting question in my opinion is "should there be laws regulating voluntary agreements". If somebody has a problem with Facebook, they can just not register. Some claim "everybody else has Facebook so I have to use it as well", but if you equate societal pressure to involuntary action, you are opening a can of worms.
  - dexen 14y ago
    > The more interesting question in my opinion is "should there be laws regulating voluntary agreements". Yes, and they serve important function -- leveling the playing field in case of strong imbalance between the parties. Consider for example employment -- in many cases, employers have stronger bargaining position against singular employees or candidates, and could strong-arm individuals into one-sided deals. Thus most countries have certain degree of regulation of employment, providing some basic standard for the employment deals. Having said that, I still can't reconcile with the idea of every website being subject to local laws of every country it is accessed from, merely by the fact that somebody visited the site from within this particular country. In case of using a website, the active party is the user, and the website operator is the passive party. If anything, local law should bind the users, not the operators. How about the German government went instead, ``Under penalty of XYZ, citizens ((of Germany)) may not use social networking website which require disclosure of real names as a precondition''? While this apparently puts pressure on users alone, Facebook would have to weight the real-name policy vs. losing a large, country-wide market.
    - tallanvor 14y ago
      But Facebook is not a passive party here. They are actively using your information to market products towards you and your friends, much more so than most sites.
draq 14y ago
The change in policy is demanded by the "Independent State Centre for Data Protection, Schleswig-Holstein", a public institution of a constituent state, but not a court of law. It will probably go through all the court instances, before a conclusion is reached. So let's talk about it next year.
- jeltz 14y ago
  I am pretty sure it might take more than one year since this should end up in the European Court.
  - rmc 14y ago
    this should end up in the European Court Eh? I'm not sure such a thing called "the European Court" exists...
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      That may be an incorrect name, but it such courts do exist.
    - jeltz 14y ago
      Yes, it does and is more formally called the European Court of Justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice It only handles union law and not national law but I bet FB will try to get the ECJ to review the case as a free movement of goods issue.
      - rmc 14y ago
        Unlikely. Considering how the new Data Protection Directive being written goes further than the current one, and seems to be targetting various things Facebook does (like having all it's EU stuff in Ireland). It seems like a lot of EU law is on the side of privacy and data protection.
        14y ago
darklajid 14y ago
Interesting. That _might_ (if enforced and extended) make G+ useable for me again. I understand that the controversy around the decision, but I've to admit that I'm very happy about this move.
- summerdown2 14y ago
  Me too. I'm a big fan of pseudonyms, and G+'s real name policy is the only reason I'm not using it.
gambiting 14y ago
Comments like this: "It is unacceptable that a US portal like Facebook violates German data protection law unopposed and with no prospect of an end" Make me realize that there are still people who do not understand how the Internet works. There are no boarders on the Internet. German people are under no obligation whatsoever to use "a US portal".
- vegardx 14y ago
  I'd argue that we should listen very carefully to what Germany has to say on the matter, historically, they know and have learned from past mistakes. Also, Facebook has a data center in Finland, which is under EU-jurisdiction. Germany has a lot of say internally in EU, so Facebook could very quickly be subject to such laws - as they should!
  - stfu 14y ago
    Facebook has quite a few offices in Europe. However most are probably just selling ads and doing localization. Dublin, Ireland; Hamburg, Germany; London, UK; Madrid, Spain; Milan, Italy; Paris, France; Stockholm, Sweden
    - antidoh 14y ago
      "just selling ads" "Just?" That's their whole business. If they're selling ads in a country, then they're "doing business" in that country.
      - stfu 14y ago
        Sure, but I am not quite sure how they are structuring this from a legal perspective. Wouldn't be surprised if this were in fact some pseudo-independently operating branches for both tax reasons as well as the protection of their US assets.
    - X-Istence 14y ago
      At that point they are required to follow German laws. Don't like it, remove your offices from Germany :P
wheels 14y ago
For the folks questioning jurisdiction, that's moot on several counts, most notably since Facebook has had a German daughter company ("Facebook Germany GmbH") since 2009.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- marknutter 14y ago
  So suppose Facebook dissolves that daughter company. What then?
draq 14y ago
Those who reads German may be interested in reading the official press release (https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/presse/20121217-facebook-klarnamen.htm https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/presse/20121217-facebook-k...), including the decrees to Facebook Inc./USA and Facebook Ltd./Ireland. Non-professional summary and translation: I. Facebook is obligated by law to provide the following for the natural persons who want to use www.facebook.com in Schleswig-Holstein: 1. It must be possible to register with a pseudonym. 2. Accounts of registered users whose registration is blocked because of incomplete disclosure or non-disclosure of their real information must be reactivated. 3. Users are to be informed on www.facebook.com about the possibility to register with a pseudonym before the registration. II. The immediate execution of the provision I. N°2 is decreed. III. If Facebook does not implement the provisions of I. within two weeks after the delivery of this notice, it will be handed out a penalty of 20,000 EUR.

83 points by denzil_correa 14y ago

This is ridiculous. If you don't like services that require your full name, don't use them. It's clear people like those services. The biggest appeal of Facebook is that you can connect with people from your past by typing their names into search or being connected to them through your current FB friends. If half the people on FB have pseudonyms it will make the process of reconnecting with old friends and family frustrating to the point of uselessness.

joelthelion 14y ago
>If you don't like services that require your full name, don't use them Except Facebook has a monopoly, minors are using it, and so on. Face it, in Europe we have a different understanding of the role of the State and if you want to do business in here, you'll have to abide by our rules.
- mseebach 14y ago
  > Except Facebook has a monopoly No they don't, especially not in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StudiVZ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StudiVZ
  - trin_ 14y ago
    they do. studivz plays ther same role os/2 and or anything else played in the microsoft monopoly era. they are at this point a niche site that is almost dead.
  - rimantas 14y ago
    And how about Russia with vkontakte (vk.com)?
  - darklajid 14y ago
    Really? Seriously? "StudiVZ" was a lame (and, if I remember correctly, bit-by-bit when they started) clone of FB, which won here for a while. Probably because they actually had a local interface and added local universities, schools and whatnot. Since then FB expanded to Germany, StudiVZ is for all purposes dead and obsolete. I don't even know how you come up with that example. It's like pointing to Myspace or whatever came before that.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      Both StudiVZ and MySpace are examples of how Facebook isn't a monopoly. So is Twitter and e-mail and Google Plus. And PHPBB and Diaspora. Facebook has a monopoly on being Facebook. For everything else, there's ample competition. The fact that Facebook is more popular than the competition doesn't make it a monopoly.
      - darklajid 14y ago
        I had the same argument over here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4938204 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4938204 Would you consider Windows as a monopoly? There are alternatives.. If your answer is 'No', the EU seems to disagree with you (and might on the FB case, we'll see). If your answer is 'Yes', where's the difference?
        mseebach 14y ago
        Windows is more of a monopoly in the sense that there is much heavier lock-in: It's not trivial to write an application in such a way that it works equally well under Windows and the alternatives. The lock-in to Facebook is much, much lighter. But more importantly, being a monopoly (however such is defined) is not in itself illegal, and it's not a carte blanche for publicity-hungry politicians to hand-wavily demand to control random details of a company's operations. What is illegal is monopolistic behaviour, to leverage your dominance in one market to unfairly gain an advantage in another. That is what Microsoft did and was punished for (rather than merely being a monopoly), and what Google might be getting in trouble for.
- marknutter 14y ago
  Your definition of a monopoly in Europe must be very different than ours.
  - belorn 14y ago
    Monopoly is reached, when there is a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods. If the service facebook provides is access and contact between people, any substitute (ie, proof that there is no monopoly) would have to be near the size of facebook to qualify. How many other viable substitutes are there that reach 30% of the population? Any at 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%? face it, facebook has a monopoly right now in regard to a service proving access and contact between people.
    - marknutter 14y ago
      uh.. skype? twitter? reddit? aim? gmail? google plus?
      - darklajid 14y ago
        You're ignoring the root cause of this discussions. Which service that you're listing has a 'real name' policy? Skype: Pseudonym (this one) Twitter: Pseudonym (the same) Reddit: Pseudonym (the same) AIM: Uhm.. Nope. Guess allows pseudonyms? Not sure GMail: No restrictions either G+: Same as FB, hopefully the next target on the list of this group. So - most of your list aren't playing that 'give us your real name and be prepared to hand over your ID to prove that fact' game with their users. Which is what the discussion is about. Of the services that do this, FB clearly is the leader. Or in a monopoly-esque situation.
        marknutter 14y ago
        You're shifting the issue. We're not debating which large service is requiring real names (btw, G+ has the same requirement), we're debating whether or not Facebook is a monopoly. By your logic, I could make the argument for any service being a monopoly by being specific about the type of service they are supposedly monopolizing. For instance, Twitter has a monopoly on microblogging services that use birds in their marketing.
- oleganza 14y ago
  If you dig into definition of monopoly, you'll be surprised that everybody has a monopoly on themselves. Important thing is that Facebook does not have monopoly on you, but your government does. If monopoly is evil, then deal with your government first. If it is not, then why worry about Facebook?
  - weavejester 14y ago
    It might have escaped your notice, but a lot of people over the past few thousand years have worried about the power of governments, and a lot of effort has been expended in trying to limit this power through laws. Any time you have an uneven distribution of power, be it a government or a corporate monopoly, you need to have some safeguards in place to ensure that power is not abused.
  - chmod775 14y ago
    I deal with my government every time I vote. Plus the comparison is wrong IMHO. Governmental power is a resource over which a party can have a monopoly. But currently no party has. I admit that I fail to see the point of your post. Might be just me.
    - RickHull 14y ago
      The state has monopoly on the use of violence, among other things. Just because leadership may change does not alter this fact. Would you deny the fact of a corporate monopoly simply because their leadership may change?
    - chmod775 14y ago
      @RickHull Please don't confuse a state with its government. Ignoring the military, only 1 of the 3 separated powers is allowed to use violence. That aside. There's a huge difference between a company and a government. Because I only get to decide on the politics of the latter. But luckily my government has jurisdiction over companies operating in the country in question, giving me also some power over them. So. To make this clear: A government having control over people without the people having control over it: A potential problem. A company having a monopoly and therefore control over people without the people having control over it: A potential problem. Luckily the people get to control the first, which in turn has control over the latter.
- fauigerzigerk 14y ago
  There is no consensus in Europe that the role of government includes protecting us against our own deliberate choices. Particularly not against choices that we can reverse any time we want. And the law we're talking about is not a European law. It's a German law. I'm glad we do have a European law that mandates websites to delete personal data at the request of users. That gives us the freedom to leave if we no longer agree with the rules a website makes. I actually deleted my Facebook account partly because they asked "friends" to report "friends" who didn't use their real name. I also don't like to be mislead and spied upon in the most egregious ways possible. Facebook is only a monopoly if all my friends decide to enforce it by keeping me out of the loop if I'm not on Facebook. Real friends don't do that.
  - rmc 14y ago
    I'm glad we do have a European law that mandates websites to delete personal data at the request of users. No, that law hasn't come in yet. It's planned to come in. Current EU data protection law requires that companies delete/correct data that's incorrect, and they can only store information if it's proportionate to what they're doing, and if you've consented at the start. But as ar as I know, EU law/directives does not allow you (yet!) to be "forgotten".
    - summerdown2 14y ago
      Principle 5 of the UK Data Protection Act says: http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/the_principles.aspx http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_... Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/information_standards/principle_5.aspx http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_... It's not the same as a right to be forgotten, but it does say companies need to think about (and presumably be prepared to argue in court) their need for data. > In some cases, you may need to keep personal data so you can defend possible future legal claims. However, you could still delete information that could not possibly be relevant to such a claim. Unless there is some other reason for keeping it, personal data should be deleted when such a claim could no longer arise.
- rmc 14y ago
  I don't think monopoly or not status matters to data protection law, which this might fall under. Sure, the USA (say) with anti-monopoly law but no data protection law, this might be an important point, but in EU we have monopoly law and data protection law.
beedogs 14y ago
Half the people I know on Facebook have changed their displayed name to some combination of their first, last, middle, or other name. They still appear to be 'valid' names, but I reckon they'd get asked to change them if Facebook ever demanded they provide proof of identification. Not sure what to make of your claim that it's "clear" people "like" Facebook because of this requirement. People put up with it, perhaps, but I know plenty of normal everyday people on FB who aren't really playing by the rules.
- marknutter 14y ago
  If people going through the hassle of signing up for your service isn't an indication that they like your service, we're all in a lot of trouble here at HN.
  - PedroCandeias 14y ago
    Signups are no indication of actual usage http://allthingsd.com/20121217/andreessen-and-mixpanel-call-for-an-end-to-bullshit-metrics/ http://allthingsd.com/20121217/andreessen-and-mixpanel-call-...
    - marknutter 14y ago
      They are for sure an indication of initial interest. And given Facebook's retention and engagement rates, I think it's fairly obvious that most people like the service. That's not to say they like the company Facebook, but they obviously like keeping in touch with their friends and family using Facebook's service.
- mseebach 14y ago
  The fact that it's clearly possible to use a pseudonym on Facebook makes the German complaint even more silly. But the fact remains that Facebook has decided to have this rule because they believe it makes the product better. That decision is theirs to make, and people can flaunt it (as many do) or decide not to join.
darklajid 14y ago
"If half the people on FB have pseudonyms it will make the process of reconnecting with old friends and family frustrating" Why? How so? And - why do we care? If users want to choose their name, how is it relevant if it's frustrating for _other_ people to be unable to locate them? How many people are searching the ex-gf/-bf by name to stalk and see what they're up to? Isn't it very frustrating as well if people got married and - whoa - just give Facebook their _current_ 'real name'. You wouldn't be able to find them. Maybe the service should require you to list the maiden name, blocking you for failing to do so? And - frankly: I know more people on FB with 'fake' names than with 'real' ones. Family, friends, random acquaintances, 70% don't use their real name. The range is from fantasy names (like, obviously invalid/~random~), to play on words/phrases (localized variants of 'Some Dude' or similar) to the braindead exercise of writing your name backwards (you'd be there as "Kram Rettun"). Against the TOS? Yeah, sure. Impossible to enforce for localized jokes or seemingly valid names anyway. And quite frankly, if it's 'frustrating' for people that want to search for old contacts is really, really not interesting _for those users_.
- marknutter 14y ago
  > Why? How so? And - why do we care? If users want to choose their name, how is it relevant if it's frustrating for _other_ people to be unable to locate them? Well, because that's the way Facebook works. They made a decision early on to require real names because most of the value of Facebook hinged upon the ease of finding friends and family. Imagine if the white pages allowed people to use pseudonyms. It wouldn't be worth much, would it? > How many people are searching the ex-gf/-bf by name to stalk and see what they're up to? Dunno, lots? Who cares? > And - frankly: I know more people on FB with 'fake' names than with 'real' ones. Family, friends, random acquaintances, 70% don't use their real name. The range is from fantasy names (like, obviously invalid/~random~), to play on words/phrases (localized variants of 'Some Dude' or similar) to the braindead exercise of writing your name backwards (you'd be there as "Kram Rettun"). This is purely anecdotal but I would put the rate of actual names used among my friends at around 99%. Now, granted, that may because I haven't found the acquaintances from my past who do use fake names, but that only bolsters my point. If most people used fake names then a large part of the appeal of Facebook would dissipate. > Isn't it very frustrating as well if people got married and - whoa - just give Facebook their _current_ 'real name'. You wouldn't be able to find them. Maybe the service should require you to list the maiden name, blocking you for failing to do so? Facebook has a solution for the maiden name problem, btw, (by allowing users to enter an "alternate name")[https://www.facebook.com/help/131728300237162/ https://www.facebook.com/help/131728300237162/], and again, this is purely anecdotal, but I see a very high percentage of people in my network taking advantage of this feature. I would wager it's because most people want to be found by their friends and family. > Against the TOS? Yeah, sure. Impossible to enforce for localized jokes or seemingly valid names anyway. And quite frankly, if it's 'frustrating' for people that want to search for old contacts is really, really not interesting _for those users_. I don't personally have a problem with people circumventing Facebook's TOS and I'd gather that Facebook probably doesn't care all that much either. What I do have a problem with is a government arbitrarily setting a TOS for a website that people can choose whether or not to use.
rmc 14y ago
However if the law says that you must be able to use them without giving your full name then the service must abide by that.
awayand 14y ago
|If you don't like services that require your full name, don't use them. Similarly, if you don't like to provide pseudonyms, don't do business in Germany. Power always does what it wants, this time it is the German government with the upper hand.
- marknutter 14y ago
  So how exactly do you not do business in Germany if you're a website like Facebook? Do you just cancel all the accounts of people who listed their home country as Germany? What about people who were born in Germany but don't live there anymore? If I'm visiting Germany, will Facebook not work for me? And how exactly will Germany's public respond if they simply block them from using their service? I would wager people would be fairly upset.
  - jeltz 14y ago
    One thing you can do is not starting a German subsidiary like Facebook has done. That removes any excuse of being a foreign internet based company.
  - div 14y ago
    Content sites like Hulu, Netflix, Youtube seem to have no problem restricting access based on ip. This isn't 100%, but it would effectively block everyone in my family except me.
  - darklajid 14y ago
    Your point could be equally made about the real name policy. How exactly do you enforce this policy? Do you just delete all people with 'wrong' names? What about people that changed their name (marriage, legal change of name) and didn't update the site? If you'd block Germany, I'd guess there'd be a quick replacement ready (we had FB clones in the past. They are barren and empty because FB won, but I'm pretty sure that most people would Just Move On (TM). I don't expect riots over Facebook and Farmville).
    - marknutter 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

unkoman 14y ago
Google VP Bradley Horowitz (in a Google+ post on January 24, 2012) announced that Google is updating its policy "to broaden support for established pseudonyms [1]. [1] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+BradleyHorowitz/posts/SM5RjubbMmV https://plus.google.com/u/0/+BradleyHorowitz/posts/SM5RjubbM...

sovok 14y ago

Maybe not that big of a deal. If Facebook doesn't comply, they only have to pay 20000€: http://translate.google.de/translate?twu=1?sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.golem.de/news/abschaffung-der-klarnamenpflicht-uld-gibt-facebook-noch-zwei-wochen-zeit-1212-96410.html http://translate.google.de/translate?twu=1?sl=de&tl=en&#...

Xylakant 14y ago
Maybe more of a deal is that this is the first step in the legal battle. Now Facebook can appeal or ignore but that opens up to get a court injunction all the way up to the european courts until you get a decision on the highest level. Without a first injunction, none of that would be possible.
PhantomLobe 14y ago
Per violation. If they keep violating they keep paying and under my limited knowledge of the German law, repeated violations can go criminal.
jeltz 14y ago
That is only their first fine. If German law is similar to Swedish law here nothing prevents future fines if FB just chose to ignore the ruling and pay the fine.

Hopka 14y ago

It's interesting because there are several German social networks (XING, StudiVZ, wer-kennt-wen, ...) that also do not allow their users to use pseudonyms. As far as I know, none of them have been ordered to change their policies.

sdoering 14y ago
Yepp. As good, as one might find this move from the German regulators, one must wonder, why only one network is targeted. But that is nothing new here in Germany. Most often it is one symbolic network (often times Google), that is the target. So one might suspect, that this is nothing more than symbolic policy. The data-protecting people in our government are toothless kittens, they have no real influence and these moves seem to me only to be made, to show, that they are still there and to justify their existence. Sad to see, but there does not seem to be any real chance, that this will change.
- drucken 14y ago
  So, this "decree" has no meaning even if fought in a German legal court?
  - rmc 14y ago
    Depends. Some countries empower the local data protection commission to make binding injunctions forcing a company/person to do/not do a thing. I know Ireland has this. No idea of Germany, but presume it's similar.
    - sdoering 14y ago
      They might force FB to do this. But having seen what happens here with Google or all the other cases, I really doubt their "power" or will to do much more, than symbolic policy.
      - rmc 14y ago
        You know the Irish Data Protection Commissioner force Facebook to make some privacy related changes, right?

jamestc 14y ago

Luckily the thing that all websites are missing when they ask you to fill in a name field is the ability to verify whether or not it is actually your name.

feint 14y ago

Shouldn't Facebook be allowed to do what it likes? Regulating how an internet company chooses to run its product is very worrying.

VMG 14y ago
Most people will respond with "law is law". The more interesting question in my opinion is "should there be laws regulating voluntary agreements". If somebody has a problem with Facebook, they can just not register. Some claim "everybody else has Facebook so I have to use it as well", but if you equate societal pressure to involuntary action, you are opening a can of worms.
- dexen 14y ago
  > The more interesting question in my opinion is "should there be laws regulating voluntary agreements". Yes, and they serve important function -- leveling the playing field in case of strong imbalance between the parties. Consider for example employment -- in many cases, employers have stronger bargaining position against singular employees or candidates, and could strong-arm individuals into one-sided deals. Thus most countries have certain degree of regulation of employment, providing some basic standard for the employment deals. Having said that, I still can't reconcile with the idea of every website being subject to local laws of every country it is accessed from, merely by the fact that somebody visited the site from within this particular country. In case of using a website, the active party is the user, and the website operator is the passive party. If anything, local law should bind the users, not the operators. How about the German government went instead, ``Under penalty of XYZ, citizens ((of Germany)) may not use social networking website which require disclosure of real names as a precondition''? While this apparently puts pressure on users alone, Facebook would have to weight the real-name policy vs. losing a large, country-wide market.
  - tallanvor 14y ago
    But Facebook is not a passive party here. They are actively using your information to market products towards you and your friends, much more so than most sites.

draq 14y ago

The change in policy is demanded by the "Independent State Centre for Data Protection, Schleswig-Holstein", a public institution of a constituent state, but not a court of law. It will probably go through all the court instances, before a conclusion is reached. So let's talk about it next year.

jeltz 14y ago
I am pretty sure it might take more than one year since this should end up in the European Court.
- rmc 14y ago
  this should end up in the European Court Eh? I'm not sure such a thing called "the European Court" exists...
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    That may be an incorrect name, but it such courts do exist.
  - jeltz 14y ago
    Yes, it does and is more formally called the European Court of Justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice It only handles union law and not national law but I bet FB will try to get the ECJ to review the case as a free movement of goods issue.
    - rmc 14y ago
      Unlikely. Considering how the new Data Protection Directive being written goes further than the current one, and seems to be targetting various things Facebook does (like having all it's EU stuff in Ireland). It seems like a lot of EU law is on the side of privacy and data protection.
      - 14y ago

darklajid 14y ago

Interesting. That _might_ (if enforced and extended) make G+ useable for me again. I understand that the controversy around the decision, but I've to admit that I'm very happy about this move.

summerdown2 14y ago
Me too. I'm a big fan of pseudonyms, and G+'s real name policy is the only reason I'm not using it.

gambiting 14y ago

Comments like this: "It is unacceptable that a US portal like Facebook violates German data protection law unopposed and with no prospect of an end" Make me realize that there are still people who do not understand how the Internet works. There are no boarders on the Internet. German people are under no obligation whatsoever to use "a US portal".

vegardx 14y ago
I'd argue that we should listen very carefully to what Germany has to say on the matter, historically, they know and have learned from past mistakes. Also, Facebook has a data center in Finland, which is under EU-jurisdiction. Germany has a lot of say internally in EU, so Facebook could very quickly be subject to such laws - as they should!
- stfu 14y ago
  Facebook has quite a few offices in Europe. However most are probably just selling ads and doing localization. Dublin, Ireland; Hamburg, Germany; London, UK; Madrid, Spain; Milan, Italy; Paris, France; Stockholm, Sweden
  - antidoh 14y ago
    "just selling ads" "Just?" That's their whole business. If they're selling ads in a country, then they're "doing business" in that country.
    - stfu 14y ago
      Sure, but I am not quite sure how they are structuring this from a legal perspective. Wouldn't be surprised if this were in fact some pseudo-independently operating branches for both tax reasons as well as the protection of their US assets.
  - X-Istence 14y ago
    At that point they are required to follow German laws. Don't like it, remove your offices from Germany :P

wheels 14y ago

For the folks questioning jurisdiction, that's moot on several counts, most notably since Facebook has had a German daughter company ("Facebook Germany GmbH") since 2009.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
marknutter 14y ago
So suppose Facebook dissolves that daughter company. What then?

draq 14y ago

Those who reads German may be interested in reading the official press release (https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/presse/20121217-facebook-klarnamen.htm https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/presse/20121217-facebook-k...), including the decrees to Facebook Inc./USA and Facebook Ltd./Ireland. Non-professional summary and translation: I. Facebook is obligated by law to provide the following for the natural persons who want to use www.facebook.com in Schleswig-Holstein: 1. It must be possible to register with a pseudonym. 2. Accounts of registered users whose registration is blocked because of incomplete disclosure or non-disclosure of their real information must be reactivated. 3. Users are to be informed on www.facebook.com about the possibility to register with a pseudonym before the registration. II. The immediate execution of the provision I. N°2 is decreed. III. If Facebook does not implement the provisions of I. within two weeks after the delivery of this notice, it will be handed out a penalty of 20,000 EUR.