Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 266 posts

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#211

Post by TeMPOraL »

Natsu wrote: post #183
TeMPOraL wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know how they do it. But they do it. I'm assuming geo-tracking of phones and noticing that you spent X hours together the previous night. My boss and I were wondering the same thing after spending few days at client's site in another country, after which Facebook suggested the client as a friend to my boss, even though they never interacted electronically by means other than company e-mail. We thought about…

Another possibility is that your social graph might have more overlap than you realize, even if it's not very much, it could be enough to make them the 'nearest' to you in some way. At least some of the graph data can come from sources invisible to you (i.e. people looking at other people's Facebook connections).

Yes, that could be an option too, though in this case it would be surprising given that this was a new subcontractor of our actual client, in a place neither of us have ever been before. But I recognize the phenomena you mention; I sometimes see random people on Facebook with surprising amount of overlap with my social graph, even crossing the groups I consider mostly unrelated (say, a person is a friend with few of my buddies from university AND some other unrelated group of locals AND also knows that random person I met somewhere that lives on the other side of the country).

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#212

Post by TeMPOraL »

dredmorbius wrote: post #129
TeMPOraL wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can de-list pretty much all information about you - without a publicly visible profile picture and your current location (city/country), you're pretty much impossible to find among others who share your first and last name. And yes, Facebook has enough users now that if you live in a big city, it's likely you'll find a few people sharing your first and last name in the same city.

I know many people with highly distinctive, and, in a surprising number of cases, entirely unique names. Some rather surprisingly. Name plus city plus one other piece of data (approximate birth date, school(s) attended, former employer(s), a few other associates/contacts, profession) are very often enough to uniquely identify an individual, even with an otherwise common identity.

> (approximate birth date, school(s) attended, former employer(s), a few other associates/contacts, profession) are very often enough to uniquely identify an individual

Yes, but you can set all of those to private and thus effectively delist yourself from Facebook Search. The only thing that really has to be public nowadays is your name.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#213

Post by TeMPOraL »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #167
TeMPOraL wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think both of you deserve upvotes for presenting arguments from two sides in a civil manner. Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the issue - on the one hand I really like the idea behind Facebook reflecting your real-life social graph, and I do fancy the ability to find someone by their real name. On the other hand, I had a fake account created for my IRC bot with personality that I meant to use both for fun and to…

> both of you deserve upvotes... Yes. I am as likely to upvote someone with whom I disagree for presenting a thoughtful argument, as I am to upvote someone with whom I agree. Been argued a million times, but downvoting as disagreemnt is silly IMO--unless you just want groupthink or a high school popularity contest. But, if you want thoughtful discussion, then reward thoughtful comments. Now, of course if I care enoug…

> Now, of course if I care enough, then I have a choice: I can either stop using HN, or I can try to get the government to regulate it. Heh.

Hah, nice one. Though I thought as western civilization we've agreed long ago not to do that because everyone trying to regulate people they disagree with makes everything worse for everybody. Liberal ideals, or something. ;).

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#215

Post by rwallace »

morgante wrote: post #21

I wish the EFF and others who are against using real names would at least acknowledge the drawbacks of pseudonyms and the proliferation of fake accounts and fake names which comes with them. The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames. Even more importantly, I can easily find the people in…

I didn't downvote you, but I'll play devil's advocate and make an argument over why access to Facebook is a right.

In the normal course of events, a non-government company is free to decide who it does business with. But there is a case to be made that this changes if society reorganizes itself so that use of a particular service is no longer optional.

For example, insurance companies would a priori be free to decide who they do business with. Except that it's illegal to drive without liability insurance, and in some places, either because of the physical fact of distance or bad town planning, it's effectively mandatory to drive if you want to be a functioning member of society. Therefore in some jurisdictions, you do actually have the legal right to buy insurance.

There are social circles these days in which you effectively cannot participate without having a Facebook account. There is therefore a case to be made that Facebook is obliged to either make sure people aren't excluded from having accounts, or set up some kind of federated system whereby you can participate in Facebook circles from some other social medium.

I myself don't use Facebook, so I don't have a dog in that fight either way, but I think it's a valid argument.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#216

Post by balladeer »

zoul wrote: post #205
Swizec wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me rephrase, I don't want it to have access to my contacts and did not realize that it does. Now that I know it likely does, I am discomforted.

At least on iOS it doesn’t, unless you gave it the permission yourself.

Hopefully in Android Marshmallow this feature is not again shot down just before release.

Granular permission control is one single thing I am waiting for in Android 6.0 because that is the only feature I wanted to root my phone for.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#217

Post by rwhitman »

There has to be some sort of middle ground, where people who need to mask their identity for various reasons can be allowed to without tipping the scales towards platform abuse. This doesn't have to be a black or white issue.

FB simply needs to figure out a fair way to validate identity but allow a user to use a sanctioned alternate identity. I think this is what the EFF action is really about

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#218

Post by rmc »

morgante wrote: post #21

I wish the EFF and others who are against using real names would at least acknowledge the drawbacks of pseudonyms and the proliferation of fake accounts and fake names which comes with them. The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames. Even more importantly, I can easily find the people in…

> People who are trying to disconnect their Facebook identity from their real world identity are not using Facebook the way it's meant to be used and should probably just leave it.

One of the problems with how Facebook is currently implementing it's "real names policy" is that it is not accepting people's real world identity, because FB only accepts certain things as "proof".

For example, trans people often get stung by this.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#219

Post by rmc »

Swizec wrote: post #110
aianus wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the problem. A friend request is hardly that threatening. If you don't accept his/her fb request, how can he/she bother you?

It's not about the friend request per se, it's about being able to find people. A large part of your FB profile is public. At the very least, I now know your last name. Maybe even your birthday. In a lot of cases, that's enough to perform some light identity theft. Or I can find your exact address. Or I can find out where you work, or just see all the places you like hanging out at and so on and so on. I don't want t…

It's almost like computer security. One little vulnerbility might be nothing. But it allows someone to pivot to something else. Which allows them to pivot to the next level. etc. etc.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#220

Post by rmc »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #47
toomuchtodo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No downvote even if I disagree. Once your platform begins to become ubiquitous (Facebook Messenger), it starts to have certain responsibilities, similiar to a utility but not quite that far. Now I'm prepared for the downvotes, but I don't think its wrong to expect certain behavior from tech companies in certain segments once they reach a particular size. A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (…

What I don't get is why Facebook's users don't just disengage. Instead, Facebook is treated as some basic human right. Here, with some vague "responsibilities akin to a utility, but not quite that far". I mean, that really sounds kind of, well, made up. Who's defining these responsibilities? In fact, Facebook is not a public utility, but a private company. And, unlike with a public utility, the public to which they a…

> In fact, Facebook is not a public utility, but a private company.

Public utilities have been privatised, and are required to operate under strict regulation. Why not the same for FB>

Post reply on HN