UK Officials Duel Over Social Media Personal Data
from the to-lie-or-not-to-lie dept
As the UK continues to struggle with their laws and the impact on free speech via social media, its citizens are receiving mixed messages from government officials. We’ve got competing ideas going on here, with one side advising citizens to give social media sites false information and the other suggesting that citizens should be encouraged to do the exact opposite.
Andy Smith, an internet security chief at the Cabinet Office, said people should only give accurate details to trusted sites such as government ones. “When you put information on the internet do not use your real name, your real date of birth,” he told a Parliament and the Internet Conference in Portcullis House, Westminster. “When you are putting information on social networking sites don’t put real combinations of information, because it can be used against you.”
It apparently didn’t occur to Smith that internet users might also be afraid of their own governments, but it would’t seem to be a controversial opinion that citizens using government sites should probably be giving accurate information. His remarks were focused on what he called “trustworthy” sites versus those users were unsure of, which makes the idea rather benign. Despite social media sites and other sites, like YouTube, encouraging the use of accurate user information, one would think that inputting a fake name or fake birthday would’t have much of an impact overall. In addition to perhaps providing some low-level defense against fraudsters, as is Smith’s focus, anonymity is an important component of free speech.
Not so fast, says MP and all-around hand-wringer, Helen Goodman. That false data used to keep away the fraudsters? It’s that kind of thing that promotes criminal behavior.
His advice was described by Labour MP Helen Goodman as “totally outrageous”. She told BBC News: “This is the kind of behaviour that, in the end, promotes crime. It is exactly what we don’t want. We want more security online. It’s anonymity which facilitates cyber-bullying, the abuse of children. I was genuinely shocked that a public official could say such a thing.”
That is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. There is a rather wide swath of false or inaccurate data on social media sites. People concerned about the aforementioned fraudsters. People concerned with data mining by the sites they’re visiting. Parody social media accounts. None of that “promotes crime”. And, while anonymity may embolden some folks that want to engage in bullying (let’s do away with the “cyber” prefix please; bullying is bullying), are any us of really ready to say that the benefits of anonymous speech, whether online or elsewhere, should be undone for the sake of a “for-the-children” argument? This is, of course, not to say that I am unsympathetic to the plight of children being bullied. But that situation is not a catch-all rebuttal against free speech.
In the end, it’s important to divorce policy from arguments that are essentially an appeal to emotion. I’d probably consider the absolute need for fake data due to fraudsters a bit on the paranoid side, but an attack on anonymity that boils down to a “for the children” quote is wholly unconvincing.
Filed Under: lies, privacy, real names, social media, truth, uk
Comments on “UK Officials Duel Over Social Media Personal Data”
the first rule of security on the internet
do not use personal identifying information on the internet,
taught in schools for the last decade,
remember kids
keep safe from criminals, be anonymous
i guess bullies are now worst than identity thieves,
go figuar
the first rule of security on the internet
do not use personal identifying information on the internet,
taught in schools for the last decade,
remember kids
keep safe from criminals, be anonymous
i guess bullies are now worst than identity thieves,
go figuar
In that case
I’m just gonna go by Shadow Dragon it’s a translation of user name I use ryukage which is 竜影.
Labour aren’t in government.
Re: Re:
YET. Labour aren’t in government YET.
“trusted sites such as government ones”
I almost regurgitated my Weetabix when I read that bit. I trust absolutely nothing about UK government, be it this Coalition, the last Labour government or the previous Tory government.
Want your children safe? Be a caring father/mother. Don’t let he/she browse the web alone till the kid can understand the risks of the Internet. Do you let your children walk on the street alone? No because some ill-intentioned person may come and try to abduct the kid. What is the difference if it is on the Internet? None. And yet we don’t see people saying you have to walk on the streets with a big sign attached to your front and back containing all your personal data such as full name, birth date and so on. Too much bullshit, too little facts in this “cyber” discussion.
On an unrelated rant I freaking HATE when youtube tries to make me use my real name. It’s Every-single-fucking-time. Google crew has to be throughly educated in the benefits of pseudonyms. I’d recommend studying the US founding history and authors such as Fernando Pessoa.
I’d probably consider the absolute need for fake data due to fraudsters a bit on the paranoid side
I wouldn’t. You ever look at your spam folder? I get email from ad companies personalized with my name. Or rather, what they think my name is…
I used to get bullied when I was a kid. I’m pretty sure I knew who those bullies were, considering that we were face-to-face at the time. (Yes, I’m old enough to remember when there wasn’t an Internet.) Lack of anonimity didn’t seem to slow them down.
Re: Re:
I was bullied relentlessly throughout 2nd-8th grade. Then I just decided enough was enough and beat the crap out of one. They left me alone after that.