Nick;
Good comment.
I hesitate to add to the sheer blizzard of emails over the past few
days- all interesting points of view etc...
But here below is how we at IdenTrust (the name represents the obvious
fusion of Identity & Trust therein) view these terms/issues in the
contexts/applications for which IdenTrusts Trust Network is used
globally- by public and private sector, domestically and cross border,
in verticles or across traditional industry boundaries.
As they say in the Courtroom "Your Honour, I rest my case"
Kind regards
John
John G Bullard
Global Ambassador
IdenTrust
288 Bishopsgate
London EC2M 4QP
+44 203 008 8333
________________________________
From: community-bounces@kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:community-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas
Crown
Sent: 03 August 2011 16:27
To: Joni Brennan
Cc: Phil Hunt; community@lists.idcommons.net; Blakley, Bob;
community@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [Kantara - Community] [community] Google+ "real" names and
NSTIC
Yes! Context is key.
In the case of Google+ or any social network whose stated or otherwise
implied goal is to foster online relationships, anonymity or falsifying
one's identity to project an alter ego is, in my opinion,
counterproductive. Yes, the service provider also has commercial
interest in pursuing this goal, but I can't blame them for that. After
all, that is why they exist. We are just as much to blame for sharing
our data under their TOS, then they are for exploiting us. It doesn't
make it right, but it is our reality given the current legal and social
environment our privileged lives have afforded us.
In the end, if I were to meet you on the street and we were to strike up
a conversation, during which I introduced myself to you, what name would
you use to reciprocate? If you told me your name was "Security Man", I
would take pause. Now, if you told your name was Bob Smith, but you
also go by the nickname of "Security Man", then all is good. I know
this is a simple example, but it gets at the heart of why this is
important to me. I cannot (or would prefer not to) have a relationship,
online or offline, with someone who is not honest about themselves. As
we all know, relationships require trust. Now, I know you could argue
that you can trust someone without knowing their real name, but for me
(call me old fashioned), this is foundational. Even if you begin a
relationship without revealing your identity (real name is a proxy), if
that relationship progresses or increases in value, eventually you will
share your true identity. Or, it will be revealed indirectly through
the fingerprint of your interaction with the other person.
I guess I'm in the minority on this, and that's OK. All of us are
coming to this topic with varying worldviews that underpin our
interpretation of reality, so no surprise there.
I do appreciate the respectful and thought provoking conversation from
this group. I can't stop thinking about this topic now...
Nick
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Joni Brennan wrote:
"Google acting as the IDP for Google properties is using profiles in a
generic way for many services. So in one service it may be appropriate
to have 'real name' or other sensitive attributes. But in another
service, what is the need? "
I was thinking about this more over lunch and you hit the point I was
thinking of Phil...
The key to it all = context
Some times real names are needed (surely for Levels 3+4) not really for
1 and level 2 is a bit fuzzy re to be real or not to be real. Rather to
be legal or not to be legal?
Funny part is that "Identity Woman" was disabled because those are words
and not thought of as names. Kaliya could have called herself Ramona
Peterson (made up) and google+ would not have blinked at it because it
"sounds like" a real name where "Identity Woman" does not.
Real names, anonymity, privacy... all matter differently based upon the
context they are used.
=Joni
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
I think the case of Google+ demonstrates the need for selective
disclosure capability in multi-property / multi-community services and
especially in federated scenarios.
Google acting as the IDP for Google properties is using profiles
in a generic way for many services. So in one service it may be
appropriate to have 'real name' or other sensitive attributes. But in
another service, what is the need?
The fact that many multi-site service providers don't have
selective disclosure is probably the largest reason many users are
violating site policy and creating avatars/fake names in the first
place!
Google is not unique here. This is a broadly adopted
anti-pattern.
Phil
phil.hunt@yahoo.com
On 2011-08-02, at 11:15 AM, Nicholas Crown wrote:
And how does an anonymous online profile help the Ugandan facing
a death penalty for homosexuality, or a person facing murder in the US
for being gay? Was it a post on Facebook that tipped the scale for
them?
The issue in Ugunda is one of an oppressive government regime.
The people there do need to fight for their freedom, or flee. In the
U.S. example, it's against the law to kill someone for their sexual
orientation. Having a social networking site that supports pseudonym's
would not have prevented the deranged person from taking another's life.
Nick
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Blakley,Bob <
Bob.Blakley@gartner.com> wrote:
Nicholas,
Translation of your question:
Why can't people with unpopular views just stand up in public
and be killed for them, or stay in the closet?
It's great to stand up for what you believe in in a nice safe
affluent white suburb where everything is theoretical. It's a lot
different to come out of the closet in Uganda, where the government is
trying to impose the death penalty for homosexuality.
And you don't have to go to Uganda; people are killed for being
gay every year in most states of the USA.
And gay isn't the only thing that can get you killed - ask any
Muslim you happen to meet.
-- bob
BOB BLAKLEY
Vice President & Distinguished Analyst, Gartner ITP Identity &
Privacy
bob.blakley@gartner.com | +1 (512) 657-0768
tel:%2B1%20%28512%29%20657-0768
http://www.gartner.com http://www.gartner.com/ |
http://blogs.gartner.com/bob-blakley/
From: Nicholas Crown
Reply-To: Nicholas Crown
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:09:30 -0400
To: "community@lists.idcommons.net" <
community@lists.idcommons.net>, "community@kantarainitiative.org" <
community@kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [community] Google+ "real" names and NSTIC
but that is a totally different problem then the one I am raising which
is whether people with medical conditions they want to talk about with
others and get support (share +1s) or a buddhist in Kansas (can share
freely with other buddhists or seekers without their hyper conservative
christian neighbors finding out) or having a feminist persona that is
not linked to your work identity in the tech industry (and if it was you
would find work had to come by in the valley) is free to use google+ not
linked to a "real name".
Why can't people just be who they are and stand in their own
shoes for what they believe in? Trying to be a buddhist behind closed
doors in Kansas does no one any good. If you believe in feminist
tenants, than stand up for those and speak your voice. I understand
that persecution could come in any one of these cases, but that is the
beauty of taking a stand on the truth. If your ideal is not worth
sharing with your own ID, then it's not for you. About the only one
that I struggle with is the case where you have some medical condition
you would like to discuss in a private setting. Can that case not be
solved with a private/closed group? If it's too sensitive for that,
then take it offline.
Nick
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Tony Rutkowski <
trutkowski@netmagic.com> wrote:
"Rights to anonymity." Surely you are joking.
In law, there is no such network based right.
In technology, there is no such capability.
Like Scott McNealy said rather publicly in
1995 - Privacy: get over it.
--tony
On 8/1/2011 5:38 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
(3) If you use crime prevention as the rationale for
taking away users' rights to anonymity, then
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community
________________________________
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole
use of the person to whom it has been sent, and may contain information
that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended
recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized
to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments.
Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently
delete this message and any attachments. Gartner makes no warranty that
this e-mail is error or virus free.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community