One further thing to think about -
I am a malicious person. I create a pseudonym and begin to "friend"
people - play Farmville with them start exchanging entries in each
others pages - and then I put a photo on a popular friends page - only
that photo is a Trojan that installs when you download the picture. What
do we do about that?
________________________________
From: community-bounces@kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:community-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Robin
Wilton
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:11 PM
To: Nicholas Crown
Cc: community@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [Kantara - Community] [community] Google+ "real" names and
NSTIC
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
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 mailto: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
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@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
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
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Robin Wilton
+44 (0)705 005 2931