compulsory real name

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mandatory clear names (also: compulsory clear names) means that as a communication participant you are forced to reveal your true identity. A service provider may store certain data in Germany. The inventory data may or may not include the user's name, etc.

Terms of Contract

This article or section is missing the following important information:
Examples from the contract terms of other providers and supporting documents
Help Wikipedia by researching and adding .

Some provisions in the contract terms are in contrast to pseudonymity on the Internet . In Germany, Section 19 (2) TTDSG ("Telekommunikation-Telemedien-Datenschutz-Gesetz, until December 1, 2021: Section 13 (6) of the Telemedia Act (TMG)) is a provision that allows pseudonymity. The provision reads:

"The service provider must enable the use of telemedia and its payment anonymously or under a pseudonym, insofar as this is technically possible and reasonable. The user must be informed of this possibility."

Some social networks like Facebook force their users to use true identifiers. Pseudonyms are only allowed if they are "real", i. H. actual identification. This compulsion is controversial. While Facebook claims that Irish data protection law is applicable, the data protection authority responsible for Facebook Germany and also the Belgian data protection authority claim that the ECJ judgment on the right to be forgotten defined the place of actual business activity as the connecting factor. German or Belgian data protection law would then be relevant. Furthermore, according to Facebook, a waiver of real names, even if Section 13 (6) of the Telemedia Act (from December 1, 2021: Section 19 (2) TTDSG) were applicable, is unreasonable.

In a judgment of January 2018, the Berlin Regional Court declared the requirement contained in the Facebook Terms of Use to create profiles exclusively with real names and correct data to be invalid because it violated German data protection law. This judgment was confirmed by the judgment of December 20, 2019 by the Court of Appeal as the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal denied the necessity of data processing within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (Cf. data economy )

The Munich Higher Regional Court decided in December 2020 that a user has no right to a pseudonym under the General Data Protection Regulation on Facebook. The ban on compulsory real names according to Section 13 (6) sentence 1 TMG conflicts with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, which has been binding since May 25, 2018 and which deliberately does not provide for a right to a pseudonym. The provision of the TMG is therefore to be interpreted in such a way that it is subject to reasonableness for the service provider. The Munich Higher Regional Court denied this reasonableness in the case for Facebook.

In the appeal proceedings, the Federal Court of Justice decided, i.e. in the last instance, that the Facebook clause, which justified the compulsory real name, was illegal, and the previous judgments should therefore be overturned. Internally, i.e. to the contractual partner Facebook, users must disclose their real name. The judgment only applies to contracts that already existed when the General Data Protection Regulation came into force in May 2018.

Unlike Facebook, competitor Google+ had already abolished the real name requirement and verification modalities for pseudonyms for its social network Google+ due to loud protests before the network was discontinued.

Other Jurisdictions

The US Supreme Court has recognized a right to pseudonymity for US citizens:

"Anonymity is a shield against the tyranny of the majority. It exemplifies the spirit of the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retribution, their ideas from oppression, and the actions of an intolerant society. The right to be anonymous may be violated only if it protects fraudulent behavior. But political speech, by its very nature, sometimes has unpleasant consequences, and in general our society places greater emphasis on the value of free speech than on the danger of its abuse."


In other legal systems, anonymity is sometimes more extensively protected. A real name requirement for websites in South Korea is unconstitutional.

In November 2018, the Austrian federal government agreed on measures on the grounds that this would enable better action to be taken against hate online. In the future, there will be no real name requirement, but there will be a “digital ban on masking”.

In several countries (China, North Korea, Iran, etc.), anonymous or pseudonymous use is impossible for users of telemedia. Since March 1, 2015, the People's Republic of China has been forcing internet users to register with real names whenever they use the internet.


itemizations

  1. ↑ § 19 TTDSG - individual standard. Retrieved January 19, 2022 .
  2. ↑ Stefan Schulz: Data protection on Facebook: No real names! In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . 18 December 2012, ISSN  0174-4909 ( faz.net [accessed 23 August 2016]).
  3. ↑ WORLD: Can Facebook ban pseudonyms and require ID? In: THE WORLD . 28 July 2015 ( welt.de [accessed 28 January 2022]).
  4. ↑ a b Friedhelm Greis: Social network: New attempt against compulsory real names on Facebook. dpa article on Golem.de , July 28, 2015, retrieved July 26, 2016 .
  5. ↑ ULD issues injunctions against Facebook over real name requirement. Retrieved August 12, 2020 .
  6. ↑ LG Berlin, judgment of January 16, 2018, Az. 16 O 341/15
  7. ↑ Facebook violates German data protection law VZBV. Retrieved February 28, 2018 .
  8. ↑ KG, judgment of December 20, 2019, Az. 5 U 9/18 = online at Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV (VZBV).
  9. ↑ heise online: Verdict: Facebook violates data and consumer protection. Retrieved January 25, 2020 .
  10. ↑ "In this respect, the Senate does not share the view of the appeal that data processing is already necessary within the meaning of the DS-GVO if it is appropriate in the light of a legitimate purpose. "Necessity" is more than "appropriateness" and is not given here" (KG, judgment of December 20, 2019, Az. 5 U 9/18, BeckRS 2019, 35233 para. 42, beck-online).
  11. ↑ Munich Higher Regional Court, judgment of December 8, 2020, Az. 18 U 2822/19 Pre = Munich Higher Regional Court: Changing a profile name on "facebook.com" - no right to a pseudonym. Freistaat Bayern, December 10, 2020, retrieved April 24, 2021 .
  12. ↑ heise online: BGH overturns clear name requirement: Facebook may not generally prohibit pseudonyms. Retrieved January 27, 2022 .
  13. ↑ tagesschau.de: BGH: Facebook must allow pseudonyms in certain cases. Retrieved January 28, 2022 .
  14. ^ US Supreme Court: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (93-986), 514 US 334 (1995) . Ed.: Cornell University Law School. Cornell University Law School, New York April 19, 1995 ( cornell.edu [accessed September 1, 2021]).
  15. ↑ WORLD: No real names in South Korea . In: THE WORLD . August 24, 2012 ( welt.de [accessed August 25, 2020]).
  16. ↑ Hate on the Net. Government wants "ban on masks" In: orf.at, November 13, 2018.
  17. ↑ Digital masking ban: Austria wants real names and place of residence of forum users. In: netzpolitik.org. April 10, 2019, retrieved April 13, 2019 (German).
  18. ↑ China introduces compulsory real names for registrations on the Internet - News - gulli.com. (No longer available online.) In: gulli.com The IT and Tech Channel. Archived from the original on July 27, 2016 ; retrieved October 11, 2016 .