a question regarding the use of real names

use the replies to post a more detailed answer if you wish

I think this must be the choice of each person. I dicided to post under my almost real name, but I tech kids to always use a pseudonym. Even if everybody in the forum or the community knows the real name: google does not know it. Therefore all search engines cannot use forum posts to make profiles of persons or use the info in any way.

And where is this taking us? Explain what your purpose is in holding yet another pole or even mentioning this subject again?

If the vote says yes names must be used how will you verify them?

Will this change the content of a post. If, for eg, I decide to post using the name bullpoopie would my name detract from the content?

This subject is truly getting on my boobies! ENOUGH OF IT ALREADY

Jose melo

Partic duval

Gunter vern

Do you know ANY of those famous people mentioned?

Hide yourself for the all-seeing eye of google! Your identity is a bigger treasure than tons of gold.

One of the flaws of this forun is that there is almost no information about the posters in the profile. The old forum had great information in the profiles about most of the members. I would regularly go to the profile to find out about the person I was talking with. I am always skeptical of taking advice from anoymous posters. They can run gamut of waba to who knows?

wdax wrote:I think this must be the choice of each person. I dicided to post under my almost real name, but I tech kids to always use a pseudonym. Even if everybody in the forum or the community knows the real name: google does not know it. Therefore all search engines cannot use forum posts to make profiles of persons or use the info in any way.

"Almost real name" is a nice way to put it. I also use this style.

Hanon wrote:And where is this taking us? Explain what your purpose is in holding yet another pole or even mentioning this subject again?

If the vote says yes names must be used how will you verify them?

Will this change the content of a post. If, for eg, I decide to post using the name bullshit would my name detract from the content?

This subject is truly getting on my tits! ENOUGH OF IT ALREADY

Jose melo

Partic duval

Gunter vern

Do you know ANY of those famous people mentioned?

I do think that it would change the content of a post. I think that a person would think twice before writting some posts because their name would be conected to such posts. Not to be arguementative, but i would think twice before posting "bullshit" and "tits" on a forum that could have children or parents from my club... oh, man! You off balanced me!

I think what you mean is would your posts be worth more or less due to your name being attached to them.

heikojr

Yes but its not just about being free to speak your mind its about protecting the young naive and vulnerable. In real life to teach Judo , at least in the UK, you must have a CRB check - that means you are safe to teach kids, etc Online anyone can come across as some amazing guru and have everyone convinced they are a qualified teacher yet be completely anonymous let alone have a CRB check - the opportunities for abuse this presents are obvious. Its not just about the posts you make its about the persona you are creating and the intentions behind that persona.
I understand some people want to have their internet fantasy world, or perhaps they're scared of unjust persecution or litigation, believe me, I get that, Ive only been running this forum a week and Ive had litigation waved in my face 3 times- but balance that against the risk - is your anonymous presence here worth risking some young person being taken in by someone unscrupulous ? Does your identity being known ensure such abuses will not take place ? - of course not but it will reduce opportunities for it to occur and make everyone more accountable.
Surely as Judoka we should fight to have a more robust system to prevent these abuses ?
And before someone says "I can just make up an email adress" - well we can just google that fake email - see you have no real online presence and know it's been made up.

While I understand your intent, I fear your psychometrics are going to be off. Most likely a person who is already posting under his real name can factually only respond that his posts would not change if he were to use his real name, making the other options absurd for him/her. I am not an Internet specialist, but if you look at Internet interaction, usernames are pretty common, partly because one can choose a fun name. I remember when there was just text Internet and we were using MS-windows 3.1 and I was happy to have installed one of the first 28,800 modems. With increasing bandwidth and speed, something new seemed to become popular, namely avatars. It reminds me of popsongs. Before 10CC' Dreadlock Holiday and Video killed the radiostar, there were no music video clips, and I found it very strange when I saw the first ones. A friend of mine told me he liked it, and I thought it was stupid. Can you now in 2013 imagine a song without an elaborate videoclip ?

Avatars are similar. Should people only be allowed to use as avatars a real lucid picture of themselves ? Personally I think not in a day and age with identity theft, but anyhow. Avatars are fun, and it is clear from reading conversations here and looking at some of the avatars, that many people approach their choices with humor.

You make a reference to people in the UK needing a CRB check/safe to teach kids and someone online coming across as an amazing guru and convince they are a qualified teacher. I am having some difficulty following the rationale. If in the UK people need a CRB check/safe to teach kids, then I assume that is probably because they actually have contact with kids, are responsible for their safety, could be alone with them in a changing room. I don't quite see the relevance of this online. There have been a few kids, not too many here online. the conversations are public and I don't immediately see anyone here online making indecent proposals to kids for everyone to see. While no doubt kids have been lured through chatroom behavior that seems a far cry from how this forum functions, its topics or what people share or teach. Besides, on a mat your teacher is in charge, but here many of us share and teach, but one is completely free to not accept what one teaches or ignore them. You do not need an instructor's or coach's certificate to write about ô-goshi on a forum whether anonymous or not, and if someone wants to say they are a qualified instructor and that ô-goshi is a throw where you put your foot in your partner's stomach while dropping on your back, so be it, and likely he'll be corrected. If someone is an amazing guru or teacher online but not on the tatami ... well people are not here with her or him on the tatami, and if they plan on truly joining the person's club then they likely will first see her or him in his club just like any other future student who does not participate in a forum. Any amazing teaching an online guru would be doing here would be merely online teaching, thus if she or he is good at that, then that is all she or he can be doing online. I assume that very good online teachers may either be better or worse on the tatami, just like excellent teachers on the tatami may be better or much worse if they try to teach online. In any case it seems to me that most people active here or on the old forum are adults, not children. I have no knowledge of any precedents of anyone trying to lure underage people in some sexual-oriented thing, but I have not ever seen such posts; jokes and double-entendres between adults, yes, which I would assume to each rational human being were obvious as "not to be taken seriously". The issues of litigation are not specific to this forum; most other forums in other countries operate fairly well by simply having clear policies and people adhering to those policies.

Whilst I have no problem giving my details to anyone that legitimately asks me for good reason, I would hessitate to "use" my real name and/or details to post under. There are several reasons;

1. ID Theft

2. Politics (In my local orginization. I may sometimes want to say things about them without fear of retribution)

3. Legal issues. I may sometimes give advice that may, without intention, lead to someone doing something and they point it back to me.

4. Others I can think of but are less important (such as making a total tool out of myself for saying something that makes no sense fe)

While I said I would hessitate, I think if "forced" to, I would use my name but would limit an immense amount of info about myself. I have already shared my personal club website on this and other sites and there all my details are available, in context, for anyone that really wants to know.

While I opted to respond "no it wouldn't change the way I post", I do echo the sentiments expressed by wdax and Davaro.
My forum handle is something I've used on multiple occasions, not just here, and it is firmly tied to me. Nevertheless, there are very few connections between it and my "real" identity as far as google knows (google knows the city I live in and the year I'm born, but that's pretty much it I think), and I prefer to keep it that way. ID theft is one thing; a healthy respect for "ze awsum powahs of le intarweb" in general is another.
If people want to know who I am, I'll reply, either in PM or in public.


As for the background check/online guru/safety around kids post by "guest" above (really? not even slightly hypocritical posting as guest when you are concerned about proper verification of name/contact info?), please refer to the last paragraph of CK's answer.

cuivien wrote:post by "guest" above (really? not even slightly hypocritical posting as guest

I believe "Guest" would be Dew. I actually read his post and there is a clue: Something about "running this forum".... He probably just forgot to log on.

I use my real name and the avatar is me

Mining your data: The European Union's institutions are currently split on Internet privacy reform.

The European Union is seeking to increase the private sphere of its citizens by strengthening data protection laws for the web. Large Internet firms and lobbyists are fighting the plans. Here's an overview of the debate in Brussels.



When it comes to hysteria over coming data protection rules in Europe, the most extremist warnings from lobbyists these days are coming out of the law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse. The head of the firm's privacy and information law group, Eduardo Ustaran, recently told the American technology news service ZDNet that if the EU's draft privacy and data protection law isn't changed, Gmail and Facebook may be forced to abandon their ad-supported models and start charging their customers in Europe or stop providing them with these popular services altogether.

<p>




ANZEIGE



"If they weren't able to use your data in the way that is profitable or useful for them for advertising purposes, then either the user has to pay for it or stop using the service," Ustaran, whose company represents Facebook, Google and Zynga among other companies, told ZDNet.


Not even industry associations representing the IT industry, who have been particularly critical of the draft European Data Protection Regulation, have gone that far. The demonstratively dark picture Ustaran paints of the regulations shows just how tough the fight between Web giants and regulators is growing over the issue of data protection reform.

So why has the debate grown so shrill? SPIEGEL ONLINE takes a stab at the most pressing questions.

The Story So Far?





The European Commission headquarters in Brussels: the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council are debating the path forward for data.
European Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding presented a draft (the Reding draft) for a new EU data protection regulation at the beginning of 2012. The draft is intended to update EU data protection laws to make them fit for the Internet age. At the time, Reding promised the "right to be forgotten" for consumers who post personal information on Internet platforms. All those embarrassing Facebook photos, she promised, could be gone with just a few mouse clicks.


At the same time, Reding pledged a "one-stop shop" for the clarification of data protection questions -- a unified EU policy and a clear point of contact for every company. Since then, Jan Philipp Albrecht, a Green Party member and the rapporteur for the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, has also presented a modified version (the Albrecht draft), reflecting the concerns of the EU's democratically elected legislative body.

The suggested changes included in the Albrecht draft are based in part on the extensive feedback submitted by companies, industry associations, civil rights organizations and others during the past year. Members of the different party groups in the European Parliament also submitted their own suggestions and remarks.

Where Do Things Stand Now?

Requests for changes to the draft can still be submitted to the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee until Feb. 27. The committee is tentatively expected to vote on a completed draft in late April or early May. In parallel, a working group of the powerful European Council, the body that is led by the leaders of the 27 EU member states, will add its revisions to the draft. Parliament could then vote on the final text in June or July. The final regulation needs to be approved by both the European Parliament and the European Council, but Albrecht believes this will happen by the end of the year.

Who Is Fighting against Whom?

The main parties in the debate are companies, civil rights proponents and data protection officials in the EU member states. The latter want to prevent a situation in which they lose influence to Brussels and a regulation is passed that might make it easier for companies to interpret the data protection regulation to their own advantage. Meanwhile, companies and civil rights activists are arguing over the definition of private data and how it should be dealt with. Companies would like as much flexibility as possible and little by way of strict regulations. They argue that a surfeit of regulations would act as a corset that strangles innovation and growth. But privacy advocates argue that reliable data protection is the necessary foundation for gaining the trust of users and ensuring growth.

Which Data Is Considered Private?





Geodata collected in an iPhone: Should this be considered protected private data?
Jan Philipp Albrecht isn't pleased with the European Commission definition of personal data as laid out in Reding's draft. The reason is that, taken individually, many pieces of data may not be considered to be personal. If combined, however, it may be possible to clearly identify the end user using these bits of data. These are defined as "online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as IP addresses or cookie identifiers."


But Albrecht's draft goes further, including the term "and other unique identifiers" in its definition of potentially private data. "Since such identifiers leave traces and can be used to single out natural persons, this regulation should be applicable to processing involving such data, unless those identifiers demonstrably do not relate to natural persons, such as for example the IP addresses used by companies, which cannot be considered 'personal' as defined in this regulation."

The debate is still raging over the precise definition of what can be considered personal data.

When Must User Consent Be Sought?





Fortune Cookie: Should users' consent be required before laying a cookie in their browser?
The precept of the new regulation is that firms can use personal data if they have obtained the consent of the user in question or if the law explicitly permits the processing of that data -- and both the European Commission and parliament rappateur Albrecht are also in agreement here.


But what exceptions to this principle are allowed and what kind of user consent will be required?

The Reding draft includes an exception that is as sweeping as it is vague: namely that the "legitimate interests pursued by" the party processing the data may make consent unnecessary. Under the exception, the processing of personal data can also be considered legal as long as such interests are not "overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject."

What Is Considered to Be Consent?






The Albrecht draft goes a long way in reining in Reding's language, which leaves broad room for interpretation. It offers a more concrete definition of the "concrete interests" of the "controller," or party processing the data. More specifically, for example, it cites processing of personal data that takes places as part of "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, the media and the arts." It also explicitly identifies "direct marketing," a clear attempt by Green Party member Albrecht to formulate a compromise that will not get immediately rejected by the large lobby groups.


The Albrecht draft also provides a firmer definition of what would be considered consent. The standard prompt often seen on websites today that is automatically checked unless a user unchecks it would not be permitted under his version. He has also included an additional criteria for the determination of what is a valid consent: the market position of the party processing the data. If a company is in a "dominant market position with respect to the product or services offered to the data subject," then consent "does not provide a valid legal ground" for the processing of personal data.

The European Parliament committee version also goes another step further on the issue than the Commission proposal. It regulates that consent would not be valid in cases where a company changes its service terms in a way that gives a person "no option other than to accept the change or abandon an online resource in which they have invested significant time." This could be a reference to Facebook's strategy of constantly declaring increasing areas of its user's data as "public" without obtaining the explicit consent of users.

Who Will Regulate Companies in the EU?





Google's European headquarters in Dublin: Should Irish data protection authorities have the last word?
The European Commission would prefer that in situations where Internet companies have several offices in Europe that supervisory authority for those firms would be handled by the member state in which they have their European headquarters. Take Facebook, for example, which has its European headquarters in Ireland. The Irish government's data protection commissioner would then be responsible for the concerns of all EU citizens relating to the company's privacy policies.


It's a centralization of supervisory authority that Albrecht rejects. Under his draft for the new data protection regulation, EU citizens would still be able to address their problems with the authority in their own country and in their own language. But the local supervisory authority would be "competent" for addressing any problems but not solely "responsible". They wouldn't have the last word and they would have to consult with their colleagues in other countries before making any final decisions.

Under the Albrecht draft, the planned European Data Protection Board, which would feature top data protection officials from each member state, would be also be equipped with a veto power. If, for example, a German data protection commissioner complained to his or her Irish counterpart about a company that is based in Ireland and the official in Berlin didn't believe the Irish had handled the case correctly, the conflict would then be resolved by the board at the EU level. The board could overrule an Irish decision if it mustered a two-thirds majority. Under the Reding draft, the European Commission would have had the last word in unresolved disputes.

The European Commission's draft itself offers several advantages to companies. They are given a single point of contact for resolving issues and greater legal certainty. But it would have plenty of disadvantages for everyone else. Users would have to seek help outside the countries they live in, the competition of ideas in the design and implementation of EU regulations is diminished. It could also lead to a situation in which corporations choose the sites of their European headquarters based on the strength, or lack thereof, of data protection supervision in that country. That kind of competition between countries in attracting companies to locate their offices there has already been a phenomenon in the EU for some time now. Apple and Amazon for example, sell all of their e-books and some other goods from Luxembourg, an EU state with lower taxes.

How Much Power Will the European Commission Have?

<p>



European Justice Commissioner Viviene Reding of Luxembourg: The European Commission is seeking to gain supervisory power.
Under existing privacy regulations, data protection supervision in EU countries must be conducted entirely independently of public authorities, and data protection controllers are not under the supervision of the European Commission. But the EU wants to weaken this policy and install itself as the data protection agencies' supervisory authority.


In Reding's draft, the European Commission establishes for itself the right to suspend planned measures by member state data protection authorities. In certain cases, the Commission is also seeking to provide itself with "implementing acts" that would give it power over data protection authorities.

There is resistance to these plans within the European Parliament. Under the Albrecht draft, the Commission would not be permitted to suspend measures. According the draft, it would only be permitted to demand detailed information on the reasoning behind the authority's decision. As a last resort, it could challenge binding decisions of the European Data Protection Board before the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg, the bloc's highest legal authority.

guys, I think the idea has already been killed. no real names will be required, there was only one admin in favor of the mandate, and it wasn't me. you can all rest easy.

because:


except for the pieman. we all already knew about him.

Woof!

It is more fun to have pen names and avatars. Our own names are often boring. Stick ith registering with your own name but being allowed to call yourself whatever.

see, I'd be in favor of it if you had to register your account with your real name, but it would only be known to the admin team, and you could stay completely anonymous, but if someone were to say they were, say Daigo sensei or Abbe sensei, the admins would then take action to stop them from defrauding people. but IMO I think we're better off if people just know that this is a forum and as such anybody can post anything they want, and that everything should be taken with a grain of salt because it's the internet and anyone can say anything without the requisite that what they're saying is true.

genetic judoka wrote:see, I'd be in favor of it if you had to register your account with your real name, but it would only be known to the admin team, and you could stay completely anonymous, but if someone were to say they were, say Daigo sensei or Abbe sensei, the admins would then take action to stop them from defrauding people. but IMO I think we're better off if people just know that this is a forum and as such anybody can post anything they want, and that everything should be taken with a grain of salt because it's the internet and anyone can say anything without the requisite that what they're saying is true.

Agreed definitely, unless of course it is the BJA forum in which case registering your real name would probably end up with a banning order......not that I am paranoid or anything

genetic judoka wrote:

but if someone were to say they were, say Daigo sensei or Abbe sensei, the admins would then take action to stop them from defrauding people. .

If anyone believed a poster was Abe or Daigo sensei posting here I would think that says more about them than the poster.

Can you explain, in detail, how some one can be defrauded here? Sincere genuine question?

The last point is IF only the admin new the identity of the poster of what use would that be to the rest and majority of the posters??????

I simply cannot make a touch of logic in such a matter as this. I need helping out here.

Mike

Hanon wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:

but if someone were to say they were, say Daigo sensei or Abbe sensei, the admins would then take action to stop them from defrauding people. .

If anyone believed a poster was Abe or Daigo sensei posting here I would think that says more about them than the poster.

Can you explain, in detail, how some one can be defrauded here? Sincere genuine question?

The last point is IF only the admin new the identity of the poster of what use would that be to the rest and majority of the posters??????

I simply cannot make a touch of logic in such a matter as this. I need helping out here.

Mike

And, what makes the admins so special? We're just volounteers, there's nothing to say we should be trusted with your personal information any more than any other poster here.

ThePieman wrote:

Hanon wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:

but if someone were to say they were, say Daigo sensei or Abbe sensei, the admins would then take action to stop them from defrauding people. .

If anyone believed a poster was Abe or Daigo sensei posting here I would think that says more about them than the poster.

Can you explain, in detail, how some one can be defrauded here? Sincere genuine question?

The last point is IF only the admin new the identity of the poster of what use would that be to the rest and majority of the posters??????

I simply cannot make a touch of logic in such a matter as this. I need helping out here.

Mike

And, what makes the admins so special? We're just volounteers, there's nothing to say we should be trusted with your personal information any more than any other poster here.

I don't think the admins are special. I think some are dogs.:D

Hanon wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:

but if someone were to say they were, say Daigo sensei or Abbe sensei, the admins would then take action to stop them from defrauding people. .

If anyone believed a poster was Abe or Daigo sensei posting here I would think that says more about them than the poster.

Can you explain, in detail, how some one can be defrauded here? Sincere genuine question?

The last point is IF only the admin new the identity of the poster of what use would that be to the rest and majority of the posters??????

I simply cannot make a touch of logic in such a matter as this. I need helping out here.

Mike

Why couldn't Abe or Diago post here? I've heard Kano is posting here, he is not using his real name but I was told his avatar gives him away.

Mike how could I pass that one up?8)

judoratt wrote:

Hanon wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:

but if someone were to say they were, say Daigo sensei or Abbe sensei, the admins would then take action to stop them from defrauding people. .

If anyone believed a poster was Abe or Daigo sensei posting here I would think that says more about them than the poster.

Can you explain, in detail, how some one can be defrauded here? Sincere genuine question?

The last point is IF only the admin new the identity of the poster of what use would that be to the rest and majority of the posters??????

I simply cannot make a touch of logic in such a matter as this. I need helping out here.

Mike

Why couldn't Abe or Diago post here? I've heard Kano is posting here, he is not using his real name but I was told his avatar gives him away.

Mike how could I pass that one up?8)

Hiya,

Classic mistake...I AM THE UKE NOT TORI! See my point you got even that wrong.....

Mike

Peahen wrote:

Hanon wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:

but if someone were to say they were, say Daigo sensei or Abbe sensei, the admins would then take action to stop them from defrauding people. .

Isnt it just about admin preventing someone pretending to be someone else. Imagine if I pretended to be Roy Inman!!!!!


If anyone believed a poster was Abe or Daigo sensei posting here I would think that says more about them than the poster.

Can you explain, in detail, how some one can be defrauded here? Sincere genuine question?

The last point is IF only the admin new the identity of the poster of what use would that be to the rest and majority of the posters??????

I simply cannot make a touch of logic in such a matter as this. I need helping out here.

Mike

HIya Lass,

How can I write this diplomatically? If you wrote as Inman sensei we would know after trying to read the first sentence.

Mike8)