> How can a government have jurisdiction over this?
Because the government can decide that demanding a driver's license is illegal because it is an unreasonable burden on users, simple as that. German law states it must be possible to use a service anonymously or pseudonymously "if it is technically possible and reasonable". Whether it is reasonable in this particular case is for the courts to decide. (cf. Telemediengesetz, http://www.cgerli.org/index.php?id=51&tx_vmdocumentsearch_pi... )
The Schleswig-Holstein data protection authority lost a case against Facebook in 2013 because the court ruled that Germany didn't have jurisdiction. However, the Google Spain case last year changed that pretty decisively. It's difficult to see (after Google lost before the CJEU) why Germany should not have jurisdiction in this case.
Facebook has offices in London and Hamburg so "operating out of Ireland" is a bit of a stretch that seems to work with tax authorities, but may not work with other law enforcement.
Alternatively, they can try to hit Facebook's ad sales in Germany, but that's likely to run into common market rules around trade barriers.
Anyway, does Facebook actually enforce this? I have never shown any ID to Facebook, and I see plenty of people not using their real names (typically they use derivatives or add a screenname as a middle name, rather than being totally pseudonymous).
The result of the real name policy, outside of taking away individual privacy, has been the shutting down of accounts, forcing people to provide identifacation, phone numbers, etc, to prove you are you, and insisting that the name matches the legal name. Some people never really seem to be able to unlock the original account (or don't want to give facebook ID)
Around a year ago, many of my friends were in a "Gay Pride 2014 parade" group. Over two or three days, everyone in that group with a fake-looking name was reported. A little later, everyone who had 'liked' a local gay nightclub page was reported.
The obvious conclusion was someone with an agenda was searching particular groups for people to report.
How can a government have jurisdiction over this?
Also, in this case it was not the government but another organ of the state, unless you refer with ´government´ to any organization of public law.
In many jurisdiction there are restrictions and rules for businesses in place. For example, often you can't restrict purchases of your product based on the customers skin colour.
In Germany privacy is fundamentally more valued and protected than in the US of central-north America. For example, under german law you have the right to get virtually all information a organization is keeping about you, why they are keeping it, where it is from, how they use it and who they share it with. The organization is obligued to comply without financial compensation [1]. Furthermore, there are broad cases where the deletion of the stored information can be demanded [2]. Information about people may not be stored without the technical necessity for the service or without the explicit consent from the affected persons. As soon as the consent is withdrawn or the data is not any more needed to offer the service, it must be deleted.
Facebook collects and keeps data about people who do not have an active account. That is not allowed in Germany. To put it blunt; in its current form, Facebooks practices are illegal under german law.
Germans don't want anybody to collect data about them, and made laws against it. Ironically, they still use Google. I guess most simply don't understand the implications or don't see practical alternatives.
I hope this elaboration makes the situation more understandable.
Indeed, in Section II, Article 7 rules are laid down [1] which Facebook is violating, for example with shadowprofiles.
[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...
No, you've got that backwards. Jurisdiction is what allows the government to make a law in the first place.
"Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power"
The only problem would be enforcing the law. As Facebook has offices in Germany and targets German customers that shouldn't be too hard.
If you read the page you linked closely (and remove all the US specific stuff) you see that it really only talks about of enforcement not lawmaking. Your own addition
> Jurisdiction is what allows the government to make a law in the first place
can nowhere be found on the page you linked.
There are a lot of laws in the books everywhere in the world that are usually not enforced because you can't. Germany (as well as many other countries) has laws regarding human trafficking that apply to anyone everywhere in the world. Would you argue that this is not a law? If that's the case we can agree to disagree.
What you are calling ’law’ I would maybe call ’enforced law’ or ’enforcable law’(by whom?). Well, whether the rules in question are of this kind is what will be found out in court.
The only problem would be enforcing the law. As Facebook has offices in Germany and targets German customers that shouldn't be too hard.
And it sounds like German privacy law prevents requesting identity documents (which are, after all, government issue) when not actually required for fraud prevention. Theoretically US law has a similar rule about social security numbers but it's not well enforced.
I was working for BT at the time and the briefing we got on use of NI numbers was very clear that break these rules and your ass is fired - it was stronger worded than the don't look up the queens private telephone numbers one we had.
It is an interesting question if Facebook requires your real name to function properly and if this decision would hold in court, but it is in principle covered by law and I imagine the fact that facebook and other social networks have worked without these rules before might work against facebook here.
It's their country, not Facebook's.
IMO this ought to be a global rule. It's completely unacceptable to have a private company arrogating to itself the ability to "out" you at its convenience.
Fuck contracts. It's wrong.
Just don't give Facebook your real name, then they can't tell anyone your real name. They might deny you service, but they can't 'out' you.
As with Linkedin, that's not sufficient. Other people can tell them your name.
Or more broadly, how can a government have jurisdiction over anything, or anyone? The answer is fundamentally: by force.
For example, if I point a gun at you, I've just established the same kind of "jurisdiction" over your wallet. Because otherwise you'd just refrain from giving it to me.
But isn't it great that a "privacy watchdog" is limiting the privacy invasions Facebook can inflict on us, while surveilling us themselves, and funding their operations with money that's forcefully taken from us? It's like, heart-warming!
(They've established "jurisdiction" over our incomes!)
Suppose that there actually is a group within the government that's genuinely trying to protect us. Even so, the organization they'd be protecting us from is the exact same one they're part of. How does that make sense?
It's like there's a pack of wolves next to a herd of sheep, and one of the wolves is like: "Guys? Guyyys? Can we just not eat them please?"
In reality, governments are hell-bent on monitoring everything we do, because that's a great way to cement their power over us.
Dictators don't arrange elections, and the most productive slave is one who thinks he's free. That's a large part of why the whole world isn't under complete tyranny right now. Try protesting anything any government does though, and the response will be tear gas and batons. That shows exactly how many fucks they give about our well-being or wishes.
(Recent examples: Hong Kong, Brazil, Venezuela etc)
Aren't this claims funny?
Ad I said, your libertarian claims are very funny. Out of reality, but funny.
It is not my fault hat almost all the people doesn't agree with your libertarian fantasies.