online information

Posted by Jim Adler, Chief Privacy Officer at Intelius

There’s been a lot of recent debate around the use of online names sparked by the Google+ real names policy. The stark absolutism of this debate baffles me, as if we had to choose between them. It’s a false choice. We should have them all. As we map human social customs online, nuance and context rule. Inflexible policies and binary choices are a cop-out. Life’s complicated and more interesting that way. As I recently tweeted in a privchat:

There are legit use-cases for pseudonyms so they shouldn’t be banned. But they are certainly unnatural for mainstream use. #privchat

This got me thinking about how many real names are typical for each person? I did a quick look across the Intelius public-records corpus of a few hundred million people and counted the number of real names per person. The results are what you might expect:

The vast majority of people, 83%, have one full-name [Just to be clear, Sarah Jessica Parker may also go by Sarah Jessica Broderick. Those would count as two real names.] A significant minority, 11%, have two names. I imagine that most of the people with two names are married women who are recently married or simultaneously maintain their maiden and married names (typical of professional women). It’s a little surprising that 6% have more than two names. I wonder how many people in this set have criminal records?

So far, the nymwars debate has largely been framed around the 17% that have more than one name. But there are strong pro and con arguments for nyms, pseudonyms, and anonyms. What, the totality of human social engagement can’t be pigeonholed into a single use-case? Hmm, Surprising.

Nyms

Whether offline or online, the vast majority of us build trusted relationships and reputation around our real name. Real names are easy and natural. I use my real name on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. One of Facebook’s best strategic moves was encouraging use of real names. Generally, real names encourage real interactions and weakens the barrier between offline and online experiences. However, requiring real names is an 83% solution that’s fueling a Google+ backlash from the other 17%.

Pseudonyms

There’s a host of reasons for pseudonyms, many of which have been cataloged during the recent nymwars. An example of a pseudonym is Twitter’s PogoWasRight, which is used persistently and has established respect within the privacy community. Pseudonyms are not new as Samuel Clemens proved more than 130 years ago.

The challenge with pseudonyms is that they are tough to manage. I know several professional women that simultaneously maintain two legal names. They are in a perpetual state of multiple account management—”which name did I use for this account again?” I founded a startup several years ago that tried to crack this problem. It’s a bear.

Anonyms

As for anonyms, they are distinct from pseudonyms. The intent with pseudonyms is to build a long-lived identity that’s separate from our real identity. In stark contrast are anonyms (e.g., fymiqcxw) which are throw-away identities that in nearly all cases (except political dissent) have nefarious intent. Online anonyms too often encourage what psychologists call deindividuation. Nothing empowers a psychopath more than an audience and a mask.

The key takeaway is—whether nym, pseudonym, or anonym—trust, accountability, empathy, and civility are built around knowing whom you’re dealing with. As we move through this continuum, we move away from “real” relationships. If that’s your intent, fine. The nymwars debate is larger than the real name policies of any social network. It is a further evolutionary move toward mapping our social norms online. Sure, it’s messy. Most human endeavors are.

More from Jim Adler, Chief Privacy Officer at Intelius

School teachers used to warn students that any bad grades they received would be forever noted on their infamous permanent record.  In a digital era where social networking sites dominate the internet, and privacy has become more of a luxury than a necessity, individuals everywhere have much more to worry about than a bad report card.  In the endless controversy regarding our first amendment right versus consumer privacy rights, the 20^th Annual CFP (Computers, Freedom, and Privacy) Conference brought together rights activists, companies and attorneys from a variety of backgrounds in hopes of striking a balance between online information brokers and privacy.

The argument between free speech and privacy is in many ways two sides of the same coin.  Consumer advocacy groups argue that not only are consumers unaware of how their personal information is being collected and used, but they also cannot do anything to change this.  On the other hand, certain attorneys, large search engines and information commerce companies cite that while privacy is valued, so is safety and trust to the people you are interacting with on a daily basis.  Luckily, both sides support forums like CFP that can create functional transparency in the public information industry and can help define and clarify the large gray area that is the foundation for endless lawsuits and controversy.

In a CFP panel titled, Online Information Brokers and Privacy: Where’s the Balance, representatives of non-profit consumer advocacy organizations like the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the World Privacy Forum instilled concern in viewers by alluding to specific anecdotes where public records of individuals (such as witnesses or domestic violence witnesses) have led to harassment and identity theft.  Generally speaking, these activist groups aim to spread awareness and advise consumers on how to protect their privacy rights.  They also stated how public records can pose security concerns because of the way fraudulent businesses in the past have used data in malicious ways.

Intelius Chief Privacy Officer, Jim Adler, served on the other end of the panel working together with privacy activists to create a balance and ultimately find a way to better serve the needs of consumers.  Adler noted that Intelius is not only aware of emerging concerns, but is also interested in increasing communication and collaboration with rights advocates to reach a middle ground.  In addition, he noted that the company understands that the higher level of transparency being created by social media and the internet also means privacy issues that need to be addressed.  For these reasons, Intelius has developed specific policies to differentiate itself from many other online information companies. While other businesses do not give you the option of deleting your information (citing free speech), Intelius has a free opt-out policy where individuals (i.e. threatened witnesses, law enforcement, and domestic violence victims) can remove themselves, no questions asked.

Different from a large amount of information brokers being attacked by activists, Intelius does not sell lists of information.  Instead, they act as an information retailer that buys lists, gathers information and sells it one at a time to consumers in hopes of providing insight and security.  Intelius, Adler states, believes that in order to “strike this balance, you’ll need to be able to have an environment where you can innovate responsibly… trust the individuals you interact with, and provide people with valuable services,”  requiring industry collaboration.  Ultimately, he believes that it is necessary to work together with privacy organizations to use public records in proactive ways that ultimately empower consumers.  However, even though Intelius can help you remove your name from their database, there are still hundreds of other companies willing to give out your information for a price.

In the midst of a social media phenomenon, consumer advocacy groups show how free basic public records have recently transformed into more robust reports from aggregators like Spokeo.com, who compile a wide range of information, including personal information from social networking sites.  The average consumer, they argue, is unaware of how much of the personal information is online and how it is being used. In a new age of modern permanent records, popular sites like Facebook and Twitter are the face of a hidden world of commercial data brokers.  Moreover, not all information is accurate, and even if consumers are aware, they are unable to erase or correct their personal records.  As a company dedicated to ultimately providing customers with a valuable service, Adler declared “the next step is to give you transparency to the info that’s out there, know what your digital footprint is, and then provide a way to comment, dispute and correct (it)”.

Privacy advocate organizations also noted there is a wide spectrum of information commerce companies that make up the industry, and not all can be placed in the same negatively perceived category.  The very idea that certain companies, like Intelius, were interested in participating in such a conference sheds light upon companies and their willingness to address their consumers concerns.

Forums like CFP are able to bring together all sides of the issue, and through industry cooperation, increase the likelihood of creating clear definitions and viable solutions.  Both consumer privacy activists and information brokers  support an approach that requires advocates, consumers, companies, and regulators to come together to figure out what’s right.

All participants on the CFP panel agree that in the future, data collection is inevitable, and panels like this can help create a balance between privacy and public records.  Adler ended his speech reminding viewers that “innovation is a team sport and it requires everyone to help us get through this in a productive way that empowers the customers.”  In the meantime, consumers need to be informed and aware of the availability of their personal information, knowing their online activity may forever be accessible on their modern permanent record.