Facebook are Bringing Back Their Real Name Policy Regardless of how You Feel About it
Facebook have announced that they intend to move forward with their “real name” policy, which requires users to use their “authentic” name.
The announcement comes after a previous attempt stalled due to strong criticism from the Social Network’s users, resulting in Facebook apologising—a decision they’ve now seemingly reversed.
According to Facebook’s Help Section, here are the rules by which your name must now adhere:
When first reading these rules nothing seems that strange: it makes sense that you can shorten your first name to Bob if your name is Robert, and it allows for certain aliases (which is a result of the previous criticisms Facebook faced over real names), but when you explore a little deeper into this policy it starts to look a little less friendly, and a little more invasive.
Reports have been coming out that Facebook doesn’t actually allow certain names—or that certain names are being flagged up seemingly without reason. For example, Daz is a common shortening of Darren—not allowed; Nikki, a name many Nicola’s like to use—not allowed.
If like Daz and Nikki your name is flagged up you have to prove to Facebook that you are who you say you are, by providing them with actual identification. Such as:
If you don’t feel comfortable providing Facebook with a copy of your passport or driving licence, you can always opt to provide them with the following:
It’s this second list that is facing even more criticism, as many of the documents contain very sensitive data. Facebook recommend disclosing and blacking out any information a user wouldn’t like to share, but a lot of this information is actually what is needed to verify that you are real.
Even if you give over official documents it may not be enough, as blogger Stephen McLeod, noted on his site:
“Even if you’re known by a certain name in your everyday life, you won’t have that alias on official documents that require your legal name. In which case, how on earth are you meant to prove the existence of a nickname?”
The move is being seen by many as a clear signal that Facebook values its advertising potential over its customers as any users of the site choose to use alternative names for many legitimate reasons, such as work—teachers especially.
Sharing information with Facebook
The move also signals a new era of excess sharing of information with Facebook.
A 2013 study by Carnegie Mellon University showed that Facebook users are already unwittingly sharing too much information with Facebook.
According to the study, from 2005 to 2009, users actually decreased the amount of information they shared publicly. However, in December 2009 Facebook changed its default settings and this all changed. Then, in 2011 Facebook introduced the timeline, suggesting that users shared details about their history as well as key moments from their lives and the level of information shared increased yet again.
Many experts believe that many users would share less information if Facebook were clearer about how this information was being used. Facebook currently make a large amount of user data accessible to advertisers and—worryingly—no one is quite sure what they actually withhold.
Facebook do offer the option to opt-out via the Digital Advertising Alliance opt-out but reports have shown that this opt-out only affects your current browser, and deleting your cookies can reverse the opt-out. For users who access Facebook on multiple devices this opt-out will need to be done for each browser initially and possibly many times again when deleting cookies. Additionally, some of the networks who place ads on Facebook have their own opt-out policies. These factors mean it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to keep all of your data private.
Advertising aside, no one can ever be sure of who is viewing their data. In the US for example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment Act (FISAA) allows the US government to request data that may exist within US jurisdiction. Facebook data is such data.
Campbell Williams of Six Degrees Group discussed the way data can be accessed by various international authorities even if you are not a citizen of the given country.
“Which law they [international companies] choose to obey will be governed by the penalties applicable and exigencies of the situation, and in practice the predominant allegiances of the company management.
Those allegiances are likely to be sorely tested by the scope of FISAA, which essentially authorises the mass-surveillance of foreigners outside US territory whose data is within range of US jurisdiction, including data accessible in US clouds. The question that needs to be addressed is whether EU-based businesses and citizens should be prepared to gamble the integrity, security and privacy of their data against the loyalties of managers of US-based companies.”
Conclusion
Chris Morran of The Consumerist blogged about Facebook’s attitude towards data:
“I just want Facebook and others who take part in targeted advertising to admit that it has nothing to do with providing users with something they want. No one comes to Facebook for the ads, no matter how well-tailored they are to a user’s interest.
Targeted ads are about being able to charge a premium to advertisers who want to know exactly who they’re reaching. Unfortunately, in order to do so, Facebook has to compromise the privacy of its hundreds of millions of users.”
If Facebook are unwilling to make all of their intentions clear, why should a user hand overt so much data just to prove their “authentic” name?
[image error]
