Nick -
In the interests of clarity: I generally agree with your first
paragraph, but I tihnk your second paragraph mixes the very
contexts which your argument hinges on.
What I mean is this:
- social networks have a stated goal of 'fostering online
relationships', but as you point out, that is in fact secondary
to their implicit and often unstated goal of making money out of
information about their subscribers. As someone put it: "You are
not Facebook's customer, you are Facebook's product...".
- the importance of that distinction is thrown into sharp relief
by the example you give in your second paragraph. What you
describe is the way in which introducing yourself pseudonymously
can violate unspoken social conventions. I agree.
However, it is a mistake to assume that those social conventions
apply in the same way when you use social networks: specifically,
most social networks intentionally lull you into thinking that
you are playing by normal social rules - but when it is normal,
in everyday social intercourse, for there to be a third party
listening to the conversation between Nick Crown and Bob Smith
with the explicit intention of profiting from it?
This is why (and I'm afraid lots of those on this list will have
heard me say this before, so my apologies for the repetition) I
so dislike the phrase "social networking". In my view, you can
have 'social interaction' and 'networked interaction', and if you
go on the assumption that both of them operate according to the
same rules, you're deluding yourself. That is, in my view, the
Big Con of 'social networks'...
R
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:26 -0500, "Nicholas Crown"
wrote:
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
<[1]joni@ieee-isto.org> 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
<[2]phil.hunt@yahoo.com> 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
[3]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
<[4]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
[5]bob.blakley@gartner.com | [6]+1 (512) 657-0768
[7]http://www.gartner.com | [8]http://blogs.gartner.com/bob-blakl
ey/
From: Nicholas Crown <[9]nick@thecrowns.org>
Reply-To: Nicholas Crown <[10]nick@thecrowns.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:09:30 -0400
To: "[11]community@lists.idcommons.net"
<[12]community@lists.idcommons.net>,
"[13]community@kantarainitiative.org"
<[14]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
<[15]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:
[16]community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
[17]community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net
For all list information and functions, see:
[18]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:
[19]community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
[20]community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net
For all list information and functions, see:
[21]http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[22]Community@kantarainitiative.org
[23]http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
References
1. mailto:joni@ieee-isto.org
2. mailto:phil.hunt@yahoo.com
3. mailto:phil.hunt@yahoo.com
4. mailto:Bob.Blakley@gartner.com
5. mailto:bob.blakley@gartner.com
6. tel:%2B1%20%28512%29%20657-0768
7. http://www.gartner.com/
8. http://blogs.gartner.com/bob-blakley
9. mailto:nick@thecrowns.org
10. mailto:nick@thecrowns.org
11. mailto:community@lists.idcommons.net
12. mailto:community@lists.idcommons.net
13. mailto:community@kantarainitiative.org
14. mailto:community@kantarainitiative.org
15. mailto:trutkowski@netmagic.com
16. mailto:community@lists.idcommons.net
17. mailto:community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net
18. http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community
19. mailto:community@lists.idcommons.net
20. mailto:community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net
21. http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community
22. mailto:Community@kantarainitiative.org
23. http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Robin Wilton
+44 (0)705 005 2931