regulation

This page considers questions about regulation and about personal identity management in 'equaintance' networks.

It covers -

• introduction - government and industry regulation of equaintance services
• key issues and concerns
• privacy and data ownership - commodification, datamining, licensing and jurisdiction questions
• crime - grooming, defamation, stalking and other offenses
• user responsibility, self-help and identity management

    introduction

There is no single global legal framework regarding the operation of online soft network. That is consistent with distributed governance of the internet, reflecting both the nature of the global information infrastructure and the ongoing significance (or merely ambitions) of nation states.

No nation has enacted wide-ranging legislation to cover equaintance sites, although there are an increasing number of proposals - at national and provincial levels - for legislation that is specific to their use, particularly use by minors, and prohibition on access through public libraries and educational institutions. That legislation broadly transfers responsibility from parents to site operators, with an expectation for example that the operators will actively monitor all activity in a particular space and restrict 'bad language' or inappropriate interaction.

Regulation of equaintance services accordingly involves a mix of -

• traditional statute and case law regarding such matters as defamation, fraud, spam, harassment and contract
• online content regulation and legislation that seeks to seeks to extend, even significantly strengthen, offline regimes regarding 'grooming' of children, suicide and stalking
• action by site operators, whether on the basis of corporate citizenship, for maintenance of a brand or to minimise punitive litigation (particularly in US state courts).

There is no global standard for the operation of online soft networks. There is similarly no global requirement for licensing; national licensing requirements vary but in general are quite permissive.

As we have noted in discussing chat rooms and newsgroups, it is unsurprising that problems are evident in many equaintance services. Those problems - discussed in more detail below and in other pages elsewhere on this site - include defamation, identity theft, extortion, spam, privacy breaches and offensive expression. Media attention has focussed on egregious abuses (or just on eight figure damages claims in plaintiff-friendly courts). However it is clear that misbehaviour is not restricted to members of soft network: some network operators are at fault through negligence or through intentional commoditisation of network members.

    key issues and concerns

Key issues are -

• operation of equaintance services across borders, with potential for disputes about jurisdiction and consumer protection
• fuzzy identification of participants in such services, with much participation being on a pseudonymous basis
• opportunities for inappropriate communication by participants
• opportunities for collection of information about participants and provision of that information to third parties
• questions about who owns information

Requirements for participation in most online soft networks are minimal, with the result that
As the equaintance page suggests, many concerns about the networks essentially relate to identity management.

A salient concern with all of the services is the extreme difficulty of removing personal information from a network's database. Most do not have clearly identified deletion mechanisms (especially if your contact details have been captured by an acquaintance rather than provided as part of membership).

A second concern is ownership of that data. It is common, when reading the terms & conditions on network sites, to see statements that the operator owns the data.

Orkut for example notes that

By submitting, posting or displaying any Materials on or through the orkut .com service, you automatically grant to us a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicenseable, transferable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to copy, distribute, create derivative works of, publicly perform and display such Materials.

Such releases are often encountered online and are arguably a matter of caveat emptor, reflected in Andrew Leonard's 2004 comment that

Most people, by their behavior, are stating that they don't care if all their online activities can be collated in a dossier somewhere on a server in Silicon Valley. If joining a social network leads to one hot date then it's all worth it.

A more serious issue is ownership of address books. As noted in discussing privacy, individuals do not own their contact details. Participants in the services have opted in to a regimes that often include scope for operator provision of individual and aggregate data to third parties, with few apparent restrictions on how the data is used ... or misused.

Given the uncertain nature of most business models it is likely that some networks will fold; others will simply commoditise their database while they are still active. In discussing commercial privacy watchdogs elsewhere on this site we have questioned whether oversight by bodies such as TRUSTe is particularly meaningful, particularly when network operators and watchdogs are located outside a strong privacy regime such the EU.

A third concern is what some users have perceived as unauthorised installation of software on their personal computers.

Another concern is how networks are used by some participants rather than the network operators. Some have been bitterly attacked as venues for marketers to harvest data: sign up and become a friend of everyone's extended network so that you can send them the unbeatable offer for better living through modern chemistry or unique investment opportunity. Sixdegrees.com for example faced criticisms that members had been spammed by 'friends'.

Others have been criticised as venues for defamation and online stalking. The testimonial feature on some sites can be used to assert that a particular ex-partner is an indolent lounge lizard with unsavoury habits, that a teacher was too quick with the cane or molested students, or that an employer was corrupt. Inadequate policing of avatars for example offers scope for creation of multiple profiles claiming to have been dumped, duped or otherwise abused by a partner.

An Australian critic suggested that the "viral marketing invitation
process" was merely "socially inept" -

An invitee who doesn't want to join is placed in the socially awkward position of having to, in effect, tell their friends and acquaintances something like, "hey look, you may think this thing's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I think it's irkky and ickky. What's more I'm really quite annoyed that you've given my personal information ... without my consent given they contend a right to do just about anything they want with it.

That is a reflection of the jingle, encountered elsewhere on the net, that "true friends don't give their friends to friendster".

It was embodied in the satirical Introvertster site (now alas offline) -

Introvertster is an online community that prevents stupid people and friends from harassing you online. You can use Introvertster to:
• Avoid invites to chat, filter out annoying invitations for Meetup, birthday parties, or after-hours get togethers.
• Packet flood a friend's internet connection making it impossible for them to send you an instant message.
• Help your friends get a clue that you really don't like people or care for idle chit-chat.
• Create your own barrier to protect yourself against interaction with people. It's easy and fun!

    crime

Elsewhere on this site we have highlighted a range of incidents regarding online soft networks, including litigation for defamation by former pupils on the FriendsReunited site in the UK and a spammer's attempted extortion of MySpace.

MySpace was the target of a Texas parent in 2006, seeking US$30 million damages on the basis that the service was negligent in protecting teen users despite numerous warnings of the dangers. Her daughter was molested by an adult that she met following contact online. That litigation, an echo of past suits against a range of chat room operators, was accompanied by calls from some US state Attorneys General for MySpace to "do more" to protect teens and announcements that particular schools and other institutions would block access to such sites.

MySpace, as the most prominent target, has responded by emphasising its recruitment of a safety chief, running an advertising campaign on stranger danger and changing its privacy policies so that it is seen to be making an effort to inhibit adult contact with minors. Some critics have dismissed such measures as inadequate, calling for comprehensive age verification of all participants or even the banning of such services.

A MySpace spokesperson commented

We can build the best technology features in the world and the best safety features, but unless we raise education and awareness around the use of those, it doesn't do anything.

    user responsibility

That comment is consistent with the realities of life in many online fora. Law enforcement agencies, government policymakers and site operators can only do so much - participants must grapple with the challenges of identity management.

   next page  (the spaces)