tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post6419538197737191688..comments2023-12-14T18:17:52.957-08:00Comments on The Train Wreck Love Life: second hands that minds have slowed are moving even fasterEmilly Orrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-10814251342555620922010-07-11T16:56:57.302-07:002010-07-11T16:56:57.302-07:00Miss Jameson,
I heartily agree. Though those rest...Miss Jameson,<br /><br />I heartily agree. Though those restrictions the DHS placed on folks delayed my acquisition of an ID when I moved to Oregon for three full years--because, not having a passport or an acceptable form of ID (at that point, IDs from other states that had expired weren't, exactly, looked on favorably), it took me those many months to gather the five proofs of ID they required.<br /><br />It's still ongoing, btw--when Miss Neome moved to the state from Utah, her ID was still current. Still couldn't just get an ID, she had to provide a notarized copy of her birth certificate, her Social Security card, and one other verified proof of identification before they would allow her to get Oregon ID.<br /><br />Generally, this is forcing people into noncompliance, and not because any of us <i>want</i> to hide our identity--but just in my case, five forms of ID meant paying $18 for California to send out a notarized birth certificate, running down state-level proofs for $12 and $10 respectively, and then batchfiling everything up and paying $35 to actually <i>buy</i> the ID. I don't know about you, but $75 is a little <i>steep</i> for most people.Emilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-7261264878027734602010-07-11T16:22:39.992-07:002010-07-11T16:22:39.992-07:00The DHS RealID system actually makes sense to me. ...The DHS RealID system actually makes sense to me. Some find it Big Brother-ish, but, really, my Maryland driver's license is valid countrywide, so it's useful to have a verified, centralized system for such. Not to mention that, if the driver's license is going to be used as ID for boarding a commercial plane, I'd just as soon limit the things to legitimate users and not, say, terrorists.Rhianon Jamesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13627163137265856251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-53330637025549216582010-07-09T16:06:00.142-07:002010-07-09T16:06:00.142-07:00Mr. Telling,
I admit, when you first mentioned i...Mr. Telling, <br /><br />I admit, when you first mentioned it, I gave you the first general answer I had, but when I got home from the hospital I wanted to know if they <i>actually</i> had the same name.<br /><br />They don't. There <i>is</i> a separate "Real ID" program, but it's one instituted by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act" rel="nofollow">Department of Homeland Security</a>. The multiple-blog registry service to which you (and I) referred is called <a href="http://openid.net/" rel="nofollow">Open ID</a>.<br /><br />Alex,<br /><br />Indeed. Though the "for now" clause in their statements worries me deeply.Emilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-15494342718550314722010-07-09T13:56:34.594-07:002010-07-09T13:56:34.594-07:00Yea, I found a note here that Blizzard is backing ...Yea, I found a note here that Blizzard is backing down too: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9179051/Blizzard_backs_down_after_users_voice_privacy_concerns<br /><br />Glad they're finally seeing SOME sense. :)Alexandra Ruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293068479980875034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-18742743251953594372010-07-09T13:24:54.735-07:002010-07-09T13:24:54.735-07:00I stand corrected -- thank you, Miss Emilly.
I wo...I stand corrected -- thank you, Miss Emilly.<br /><br />I wonder, however, about possible trademark infringement... or, at the very least, how many others beside me had the same confusion, owing to the identical name for entirely different "services"?Lalo Tellinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07711076861284942835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-16085140858387301022010-07-09T12:05:33.905-07:002010-07-09T12:05:33.905-07:00Mr. Telling,
Again, see the first reply, but addi...Mr. Telling,<br /><br />Again, see the first reply, but additionally, <i>currently</i> there are two forms of RealID verification: first, to post anything on the Battle.net forums, but second, to friend anyone in-game in WoW or StarCraft. Though the discussion's been heavy on making RealID compliance mandatory with all future game releases, as far as I know.Emilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-9782384652069060492010-07-09T12:04:04.362-07:002010-07-09T12:04:04.362-07:00Miss Jameson,
Legitimate grounds for needing the...Miss Jameson, <br /><br />Legitimate grounds for needing the data: they <i>have</i> the data already; people needed to use their real names to sign up for accounts in the first place.<br /><br />Blizzard informing people what it plans to do with the data: again, that's what's causing all the controversy, because user name data was never before expected to be released to the general public. Hence, the outcry from the Battle.net population.<br /><br />Security of data: In this case, "secure" likely <i>should</i> mean "cannot be accessed by members of the general public"; I will heartily agree. Unfortunately, the RealID provision only prevents people from posting if they do not have a RealID verification stamp.<br /><br /><a href="http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25712376105&sid=3000" rel="nofollow">Anyone can read the forums</a>; in fact, <a href="http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626290744&sid=3000" rel="nofollow">nothing stops searching the forums for specific topics</a>. Which means that people who don't have Battle.net accounts have <a href="http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626049996&sid=3000" rel="nofollow">no problem whatsoever</a> seeing individual forum posts.Emilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-88849310183368117872010-07-09T11:52:23.418-07:002010-07-09T11:52:23.418-07:00Mr. Telling,
No, that's a blog verification s...Mr. Telling,<br /><br />No, that's a blog verification service, that's been around for years. They don't care whether you register under your 'real' name, strictly as "Lalo Telling" or "the Great Googly Moogly"--that service wants one email and one password tied to a verification service to make it easier to post on different blogs and still show up as non-anonymous.<br /><br />Blizzard's RealID is an opt-in system--for now--used internally on the Blizzard forums--every post made on the forums will thus be made under the real, verified name on the account, because to get a Blizzard account on Battle.net (Blizzard's in-house MMO hub) one must tie a real account to real verifiable forms of ID. It's not as simple as setting up an account under "Emilly Orr" on Gmail, and giving them that; I have to provide credit card number, full legal name ON that credit card, legal name and address to which that card delivers statements, <i>et cetera</i>.Emilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-78825165723396623482010-07-09T11:26:12.167-07:002010-07-09T11:26:12.167-07:00As an outsider -- not a player of Blizzard games, ...As an outsider -- not a player of Blizzard games, but concerned about Internet privacy in general -- I may not be reading the situation clearly... but it is my impression that the requirement for "RealID" is tied to posting in their forums, and not cross-linked to business dealings with Blizzard itself (i.e., paying for membership). Am I incorrect?<br /><br />Second Life had no problem associating a payment coming from my "real" name with an email in a different name, neither of which, at first, were "Lalo Telling". Nor did they balk at re-associating it with Lalo Telling once that email account was opened, nor did they when the <i>first</i> pseudonymous email became point-of-contact for "Altschuler Hoffnung", my alt nicknamed Alt.<br /><br />I.e., as long as they get their money, they're not terribly concerned about the name on the bank account that transfers it to them. Whether that also applies in Blizzard's case, I don't know - but I suspect it does, as they are, like Linden Lab, a business based in the US.<br /><br />To Ms Jameson's point: Also not being a subject of the Queen, I'm guessing... but I would suspect that HM Gov't. would bring prosecution, if (as it seems) violation of the Act in question is a criminal offense, not a civil one. It would be up to them to make the case that Blizzard's single-point claim of "more civil discourse" outweighs the multi-point potential harm of identity revelation.Lalo Tellinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07711076861284942835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-66363421252691661552010-07-09T10:02:53.344-07:002010-07-09T10:02:53.344-07:00Frack. Darn thing posted twice, even though I only...Frack. Darn thing posted twice, even though I only hit the button once, so I removed the clutter.Rhianon Jamesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13627163137265856251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-85259824336388959322010-07-09T10:01:09.001-07:002010-07-09T10:01:09.001-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rhianon Jamesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13627163137265856251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-47324027795481238922010-07-09T10:00:57.934-07:002010-07-09T10:00:57.934-07:00Mr. Telling raises an interesting point, although ...Mr. Telling raises an interesting point, although one wonders what happens when Blizzard requires payment, and said payment comes from someone pointedly not named "Lalo Telling." (This, in fact, is why Linden Lab knows who I am, even though I do have a gmail account in my avatar name.)<br /><br />But with the disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer, much less an expert on British law, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Legitimate grounds for collecting personal data? They certainly get a pass on that one, as they need the data for billing purposes. Nothing unlawful? I presume that the meaning of that phrase is "nothing <i>beyond the language of the present law</i> that would be unlawful" - otherwise the phrase is meaningless. And if Blizzard <i>tells</i> users what it plans to do with the data, subscribers could certainly "reasonably expect" the company to do what they say.<br /><br />So now we're down to two issues: are there "unjustified" adverse effects and are the data kept securely and safely? The first one strikes me as a tough call. (Mind you, I completely agree that the policy is outrageous, and you'll get no argument from me about the stalkers and nut cases out there. But bear with me.) The word "unjustified" has to have meaning. I assume the meaning is to say that, sure, any data release may have bad consequences, but sometimes the good effects outweigh the bad. The company presumably will say that the point of releasing real names is to provide a gaming experience free from the misbehavior that can arise when one deals with pseudonyms only. The adverse affect is that the player may be harassed in some form in real life, away from the game. I'd think those two competing interests would require some balancing. You and I would come down firmly on the side of saying the adverse effects outweigh the justification, but others may analyze it differently, especially when the user has the choice of not playing the game.<br /><br />That leaves keeping the data secure. Again, maybe this is clear in British jurisprudence, but if you grant that giving real names to other players is justified - again, we don't think so, but if we turn out to be wrong - then I would think "secure" means "cannot be accessed by someone who is not a player of WoW."<br /><br />I'll note that the U.S. has a variety of state and federal consumer protection laws that, in at least some cases, create a legal responsibility for firms to limit the use of customer data; for example, Linden Lab can't post your credit card number on its web site in some unsecured location. I'll guess that disclosing a name is not, by itself, a violation, but it's an evolving area of public interest. Congress could change the law to prohibit such a disclosure.<br /><br />Sanity is an evolving standard. :)Rhianon Jamesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13627163137265856251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-75039983541243429912010-07-09T08:45:57.169-07:002010-07-09T08:45:57.169-07:00[font=Emily Litella] "What's all this fus...[font=Emily Litella] "What's all this fuss about RealID?" [/font]<br /><br />If we're talking about the Internet service called "RealID", I have one of those. I picked it up at some point in order to reply to someone's blog. It's in the name of <i>Lalo Telling</i>, of course. It was as easy to obtain as any other pseudonymous subscription, because Lalo Telling already had a Gmail account.<br /><br />Mind you, I no more support divulging a person's "official" personal information than anyone else upset over Blizzard's stupid move. My advice is to <i>game the system</i>: If you do not yet have an email address in the name of your avatar/character (whatever they call them in WoW; I don't play), get one. Use it to get a "RealID".<br /><br />Pseudonymity preserved.Lalo Tellinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07711076861284942835noreply@blogger.com