QUESTION OF THE WEEK NO. 2

 When reporting on allegations of sexual assault against women, most news organizations will identify the alleged perpetrator but will not identify the name of the alleged victim without express permission from the victim.  Some argue this policy is unfair to the accused and allows women to make false accusations without any accountability.  Others argue that identifying the victim is too privacy-invasive, will essentially victimize the woman a second time and discourage women from coming forward.

Do you agree with the above stated policy?

Real Names Policies: Remaining Anonymous in Cyberspace

 By Kristofer Bielefeld

Introduction

One point that has emerged in the age of social media is the ability to be anonymous online, where your actions online are separate from your real name and identity. Despite this, Facebook has a policy where you must use your authentic name, as it is “the name [you] go by in everyday life” (Facebook). Failing to register a “real name” will risk the chance of your account being deleted. In 2015, this policy came under fire for how it affected those of marginalized communities. For example, victims of abuse would have to create anonymous profiles, so they can distance themselves from abusers.

Facebook does have the power to grant aliases, but it requires you to verify your identity, which forces you to further give up your private information. While this does give you an alias, Facebook now has more of your private information in its databases.

Check out the official Facebook policy here

Does this violate a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Facebook’s policy does not violate laws overtly, but it does raise some questions on the nature of anonymity in digital spaces. Anonymity is protected under the 1^st Amendment, as it supports the freedom of speech. Maybe you want to leave a review on an acne removal product, but you are worried that people may see that you specifically bought this product. Other people could find this review, and they might harass you for it. Using a pseudonym makes sure that the product is not associated with you in the slightest. To imagine a more extreme scenario, an investigative journalist trying to break a story of corporate corruption may prefer to be anonymous to prevent retaliation and backlash. Anonymity allows for you to create an honest environment, where you feel free to speak your mind.

However, there is a benefit to not being anonymous online. Having your account being tied to your real name allows you to be a more credible source, because your information can be traced back to you. People may be prone to act nicer when they know what they say could be traced back to them. Whereas anonymity has been shown to make people meaner when it comes to online interaction. Criminals and cybercrime are an emerging problem as well, and using real names could make tracking down suspects easier and more effective. Anonymous names may make it harder to find who the cybercriminal is, and harder to prosecute as a result.

My Thoughts

While the policy of using your real name is a noble idea, I think creating a pseudonym is a more viable option. With a pseudonym, while it may limit the credibility, I think it helps enforce the idea of privacy when you are online. Especially with other services that are linked to social media, pseudonyms could come in handy. For example, some social media sites show the location where you made a specific social media post. If the person who was posting this picture online had to give their real name, and they currently had an abusive relationship with a spouse, it would greatly benefit this person to have a separate online identity. In turn, I think this separate online identity should be treated in a similar way to the real names policy. For example, YouTube creators do not post their real names online, but they tie back their online information to this pseudonym. Similar to the pen names of authors in the past, this pseudonym is credited with whatever content they create, and with whatever statements they choose to have. So, while they have the freedom to express and create the content they want to create, they still link this information back to their YouTube identity. In this sense, your identity online is a separate entity, where you can still be held accountable for the actions you take online.

Question to discuss:

Should “real names” play a part in online identities, or should we default to pseudonyms for online activity? Does either one allow for accountability online?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources:

“Names allowed on Facebook.” Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/help/229715077154790 Accessed 24 Jan 2024.

Hendrickson, Lauren. “What is Pseudonomy and Why Does It Matter for Digital Identity?” Identity, 1 May 2023, https://www.identity.com/pseudonymity-privacy-identity-digital-world/ Accessed 24 Jan 2024

Boyd, Danah. “ ‘Real Names’ Policies Are an Abuse Of Power.” Social Media Collective, 4 August 2011, https://socialmediacollective.org/2011/08/04/real-names-policies-are-an-abuse-of-power/ Accessed 24 Jan 2024.

Galperin, Eva and Wafa Ben Hassine. “Changes to Facebook’s ‘Real Names’ Policy Don’t Fix the Problem.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 18 December 2015 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/changes-facebooks-real-names-policy-still-dont-fix-problem Accessed 24 Jan 2024.

Snider, Brett. “Can Facebook Force You to Use Your Real Name?” FindLaw, Last updated 21 March 2019, https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/can-facebook-force-you-to-use-your-real-name/ Accessed 24 Jan 2024.

“The Pros and Cons of being Anonymous Online.” DeleteMe, 11 April 2023, https://joindeleteme.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-being-anonymous-online/ Accessed 24 Jan 2024.

 

Talbert, Molly. “The Power of Pseudonyms in Online Community.” Higher Logic, https://www.higherlogic.com/blog/the-power-of-pseudonyms-in-an-online-community/ Accessed 24 Jan 2024.

 

 

QUESTION OF THE WEEK NO. 1

 Should the U.S. Congress statutorily recognize a “right to be forgotten”? 

STAR WAR'S KID: The Unintended Consequences of Virality

By Ryan Deng

INTRODUCTION

In November 2002, Ghyslain Raza , an overweight 14-year-old Canadian school boy, filmed himself at a high school studio for a class project. In the filmed video, Raza mimicked Darth Maul from the famous movie series Star Wars by waving around a golf ball retriever as his toy lightsaber, Raza mistakenly left the tape in the studio where another student discovered the tape and, without Raza’s permission, circulated the videotape around the school. In April 2003, another student uploaded the video to the internet with the title Jackass_starwars_funny.wmv and a third student posted the video on YouTube. In the coming months, the viral video of Raza amassed hundreds of millions of views on numerous platforms, and Raza became coined the "Star Wars Kid." Raza was the subject of intense cyberbullying, ridicule and harassment. Commenters said he should “kill himself” and made fun of his weight. Raza eventually dropped out of school and he became depressed and was entered into the psychiatric ward for children due to constant berating of his character.

Raza's parents eventually took legal action and sued the families of all three students initially involved in circulating the embarrassing video of their son. In April 2006, both parties agreed upon a confidential settlement, and the footage ultimately became viewed more than 900 million times! Numerous petitions arose in support of Raza to get roles in upcoming Star War Movie projects, with one petition receiving over 140,000 signatures for Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. In a more recent interview by Raza conducted by CBR news, Raza stated that to this day," there is an element of surrealism in all of this." Raza initially tried to distance himself from the video as much as possible, not wanting to be recognized and bullied any further. However, several years later Raza stepped forward and began to use his situation to help spread a message of anti-bullying on the internet and the effects that cyberbullying can have on individuals.

THE ISSUE OF A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

Many Americans mistakenly believe they have an absolute right to Privacy regarding their daily activities, the content of their conversations, and so forth. Yet, this misconstrued basis for which many Americans believe their Privacy exists is never once stated in the Constitution but instead is inferred from the 1st, 3rd, and 4th amendments within the Constitution. As such, typically, in a court of law to determine whether an invasion of one's Privacy has been made, a two-prong test is conducted to deduce whether, first, an individual shows "a subjective expectation that his activities or items would be private" and second, "that his subjective expectation of privacy is one in which society considers reasonable." The heightened ambiguity from these vague amendments also leads to loose attempts to define one's Privacy through "common law protections." Generally speaking, the provisions of which one can sue accordingly with these protections consist of five discrete rights of an individual that must never be violated. These five rights include intrusion upon seclusion, publicity that discloses private information, false-light advertising, appropriation of name or likeness, and theft of trade secrets.

LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS

With Raza's video, however, we find that first, with the reasonable expectation of Privacy, Raza initially did have an expectation, at just 14 years old, that a video he filmed with no one else present would remain private from the public. However, because he utilized camera equipment at the high school studio and left the camera at the studio individual could have accessed the footage. Given Raza's negligence and his poor care of the footage and the frequency at which that camera is used by others, it cannot be argued that he maintained an expectation of privacy in the videotape. Based solely on this two-pronged test, the legal consensus is that while the situation could be better for Raza, it should not be addressed legally in court and has no constitutional basis. However, there may be some applicable "common law protections" for Raza. Because Raza was harassed and bullied as a result of the dissemination of the video without his consent, those protections could serve as a benchmark for Raza to sue for damages. It would depend on the common law of Canada and whether it is similar to the law in the U.S.

PUNISHMENT BY THE SCHOOL?

As for punishment for those who spread the videos themselves, or engaged in any cyberbullying, any disciplinary action enforced by the school would revolve around the school's individual policy. However, due to the sheer volume of cyberbullying on the interconnected web we frequently use, some schools have shifted from prevention to treatment. Offering activities in school and optimistic character reinforcement in assemblies, these intervention programs serve as guidance for future students who may find themselves in situations such as Raza to educate them on the consequences of cyberbullying and how to seek resources for help.

MY OPINION

The sad truth of the Star Wars Kid saga is that it is all too common in the Internet Age. Time and time again embarrassing videos/pictures from people’s pasts resurface, or videos/pictures that were not meant to be seen by the public. In this evolving age of technology and rapid publication of videos we should center our conversation on the invasion of privacy based on ethics. The ability of a user to publish a video should not be bound by legal matters but rather by an unofficial rule that allows those in videos, such as Raza, to express their concern and demonstrate their request to remove the video from the internet. The European Union, with its “right to be forgotten” allows this to happen. In the future, I hope for society to find the proper moral and ethical obligations when sharing videos, such as Raza's, to respect those included in videos and promote and foster a safer and more friendly online environment. Otherwise, we all risk becoming the next Star Wars Kid.

Sources:

River, Julie. “Star Wars Kid Opens up about Harassment Sparked by Viral 2000s Video.” CBR, 2 Apr. 2022, www.cbr.com/star-wars-kid-harassment-from-viral-2000s-video/. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023.

Taylor, Chris. “Reconsidering “Star Wars Kid,” the Early Internet’s Meanest Moment.” Mashable, 28 Oct. 2020, mashable.com/article/star-wars-kid-cyberbullying.

Report, Wired News. “Star Wars Kid Files Lawsuit.” Wired, www.wired.com/2003/07/star-wars-kid-files-lawsuit/#:~:text=Star%20Wars%20Kid%20Files%20Lawsuit%20The%20parents%20of. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023.

ASO staff writers. “Addressing Cyberbullying in School: Prevention and Victim Support.” AccreditedSchoolsOnline.org, AccreditedSchoolsOnline.org, 21 Feb. 2019, www.accreditedschoolsonline.org/resources/cyberbullying-prevention-and-support/.

Wolford, Ben. “Everything You Need to Know about the “Right to Be Forgotten” - GDPR.eu.” GDPR.eu, 5 Nov. 2018, gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/.

“Bullying and Cyberbullying | SchoolSafety.gov.” Www.schoolsafety.gov, www.schoolsafety.gov/bullying-and-cyberbullying.

My Reflection for Week 2 - Kris

This week we were introduced to arguments against and for privacy. A big part of this was government surveillance on civilians. The main argument for surveillance was it was for national security, and could monitor terrorists. The crux of this argument was the idea that good citizens had “nothing to hide”, where the only people who had something worth hiding must be criminals.

Compelling on the surface, arguing that you have nothing to hide inherently creates a quite binary display of the world. Initially, this means that those with “nothing to hide” can consent to the collection of possibly quite sensitive information without any idea of the intended use. Even if the information is not used at all, there is still the possibility of a data breach, and now your personal privacy is under massive scrutiny. Privacy becomes more than sensitive information, it becomes power that is taken for you, and can be abused.

This was one of my main takeaways, because of how precious and sensitive the collection of data can really be. Privacy allows the practice of certain ideas like free speech, where you are certain that you can speak without punishment. In hand with this, privacy is important because it allows a society to grow, and critique itself.  An absence of privacy will make people feel like they can be watched at any time, causing not only a degree of paranoia, but halting the growth of that society.

My Reflections for Week No. 1 - Kelsey

Being the first week of class, we went over class structure, course information, and were introduced to the right to privacy. We learned how privacy has many definitions and ways it shows up in our lives - technology, surveillance, data, etc. We went on to discuss legal sources of privacy protection - constitutional, statutory, Common Law, and contractual protection.


Not only did I gain perspective on how large-scale privacy truly is, but also on how to frame thinking and justification as done in past legal cases. A big thing we focused on this week was the Katz Test or the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy test. This states a person must exhibit an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and society must recognize the expectation as

reasonable. When discussing the Katz case regarding wiretapping and other applications like the infrared scanners, I was able to start to see the importance of factual circumstances in determining privacy rights. In class when Professor Dryer asked the facts of the case, I was stumped, confused as to what he meant. After walking through a few examples, I started to grasp this better. I found this new perspective of looking at cases to be quite interesting.


I also found learning of the Third-Party Doctrine to be quite eye opening. This states “One has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that one voluntarily shares with a third party.” While intuitive to some, this was something I never knew or thought about.