We have scampered like feral brats across the Isle of Sodor, untrammelled by the rigid lines of regulation in the real world.
The cyber landscape was utopia for the wild children of the sixties. The grown-ups had no idea what we were up to, they didn’t understand how to turn the key to enter our magical playground.
We gave ourselves silly names, ‘Flopsy’ and ‘Bugalugs’, and when we grew tired of the anarchy, we made up some make believe parents to instil order. ‘Flopsy’ became the Fat Controller, and we gave her the right to decide which way we ran, ‘Flopsy’ was still one of us though, only a make believe parent.
Inevitably, some of us grew up, and some grew up to be bullies and perverts, cruel and manipulative; they still had a key to the playgound. Stlll hid behind their soi-innocent nicknames.
Thus it was that the Isle of Sodor became a dark and dismal place, we never knew who was a friend and who foe, we trusted the Fat Controllers, we came to believe that they were like real parents, committed to our care and protection. We told them our secrets, who we really were, put our faith in them in this make believe world of hidden identities. Some of them turned out to be the very bullies and perverts we had come to fear. They taunted us, threatened to tell our parents and teachers our deepest secrets.
Now the real grown-ups have taken charge again. The European Parliament has stepped in and decided that Social Networking Sites – for that is what they call our interactive playground – is subject to the laws of the real world.
Those who set the games, and those who appoint themselves Fat Controllers are legally responsible for us.If they want to play at being parents, they must behave like real parents, with all the responsibilities and duties that implies.
The committee of Europe’s data protection regulators, the Article 29 Working Party, has published its opinion on the legal status of social networking operators. Social Networking Sites (SNS) are ‘data controllers’, with all the legal obligations that brings. It has said that the sites cannot escape their legal obligations just because content on them is often produced and posted by users. Being a data controller under data protection legislation brings with it greater legal responsibilities than being a data processor. The opinion said that social networking companies count as data controllers under EU law “even when their headquarters are outside of the European Economic Area”.
The opinion also outlines the obligations of people who count as data processors. They must be clear about their identity, must offer privacy-friendly default settings to any service they offer, should provide users with privacy warnings and should give warnings to users about the potential privacy implications of their actions.
It is not just our ‘pretendy parents’ who are regulated. The opinion said that users of social networking sites could also attract the same legal obligations, but only if they were acting on behalf of a company, association or in pursuit of commercial, political or charitable goals.
What does it all mean? In plain language, it means that the people who run forums must be clear and open about their identity, they must protect our identity and information that they receive from us when we register. The same thing applies to people who post on forums, if they are posting on behalf of a political or charitable goal, rather than just as an individual.
Some forums, and notably some of the proliferation of forums discussing the Madeleine McCann case, have become dark and frightening places, a forest of competing agendas, dark threats, and manipulative mind games. This is not a ‘new’ law, this is a clarification of the existing law. This is the European Parliament making it clear to the Fat Controllers that they are not outside the law, they are being watched, and there is legal redress for those who have been victims of their bullying and sadistic games.
For those who prefer a less whimsical account of the law, the opinion is printed HERE.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 25 comments }
Sorry to sound thick but I dont understand much about this post. Does it mean that Myspace, facebook and others like them, and fora/forums are now under EU directives and if so what does it mean in practice?
Yes, it does Henry.
Facebook and others are run by large corporations, so are already running on a professional basis.
The problems arise with the single interest forums which are mainly set up by someone who was originally very interested in the subject themselves, be it football or whatever. These people don’t always make the transition to ‘professional’, they can get very involved in their subject, and start to see dissenting voices as the ‘enemy’ – then the temptation is to trade information with other sympathisers, and take their vengence in real life. There have been several incidents of peoples livelihoods – and marriages in some cases – being harmed by information that was gleaned about them on internet fora that they belonged to.
What the Opinion is saying is that those who run such fora have a legal duty to act professionally and are bound by the law not to get down and play dirty with the kiddies in the playground……… they must also be honest about who they are, so that when you put your faith in them by signing up to these sites, you know who you are giving that information to, and that they are bound to protect it.
Ah it becomes frighteningly clear now, Yes I see , It has happened before that I have been dissed on a forum, and been made to look like the enemy and therefore discredited. Needless to say I do not participate in such forums anymore.
I have read your posting on the ex-mods site but I am not allowed on there.
You are quite wrong. First of all the opinion is just that, an opinion. It has no legal status whatever but, like a UK White Paper, can be used as a possible basis for future legislation.
Secondly I am surprised that you were unable to read the defintions section of the opinion. A social networking site is not a forum. Forums are not included in this definition or the opinion itself. In other words you have the wrong end of the stick and are misinforming people.
John,
I give you the European Parliaments definition of an SNS.
Definition of a “social network service (SNS)”
SNS can broadly be defined as online communication platforms which enable individuals to
join or create networks of like-minded users. In the legal sense, social networks are information society services, as defined in Article 1 paragraph 2 of Directive 98/34/EC as amended by Directive 98/48/EC. SNS share certain characteristics:
- users are invited to provide personal data for the purpose of generating a description of
themselves or ‘profile’.
- SNS also provide tools which allow users to post their own material (user-generated
content such as a photograph or a diary entry, music or video clip or links to other sites5);
- ‘social networking’ is enabled using tools which provide a list of contacts for each user,
and with which users can interact.
With regard to your other point, I think you are thinking of the role of the rapporteur. In this case the Directive is already in operation, what was not clear was – to quote privacy law expert, William Malcom…….. “This finally puts to bed the argument that social networking sites might not be data controllers and therefore might not be subject to the Data Protection Directive and its local implementing legislation,” he said. “This restates some of the previously defined positions in relation to privacy issues affecting social networking sites.”
Edited to add for the purpose of clarity – it is not being a ‘forum’ that is the problem, it is being a site which allows users to interact, via PM for instance.
Annaracoon, I don’t wish to make an argument out of this but you are not correct.
The definition is in the report, so please don’t go outside it to find one that you think fits. It says: “ SNS can broadly be defined as online communication platforms which enable individuals to join or create networks of **like-minded** users.”
A forum is not – very decidedly not – a network of like-minded users. By definition it is a place for people who are not like-minded to debate their differences. End of story.
Please read the report once more. It does not have the force of law in the UK and it explicitly describes the points it makes as “recommendations.”
If you wish to believe in your own take on things that is a matter for you but I am grateful for you publishing these comments so that your readers are not minsinformed – which is the aim of all of us, isn’t it?
Blacksmith – I haven’t gone ‘outside the report’ to find a definition – that definition is taken from the report. Perhaps you didn’t read it in sufficient depth.
Your original comment was that this opinion has the status of a white paper…..it is quite different. The law, Directive 95/46/EC, is already in place, it requires no further action on the part of UK legislators to enable European citizens, which includes UK citizens, to take advantage of its provisions.
The opinion has been published to provide advice to SNS as to how they can comply with a law that is already in place. In doing so, it defines SNS’ in the terms that I laid out in my previous answer.
Your definition is a shortened version taken from the executive summary.
Edited to add once more, it is not being a forum per se that is the problem, it is the fact that they are ‘swapping’ personal information which is by its nature, of passing via the board, that will include some forums within the definition.
The fact that people may have differing views within a forum will not prevent them from being judged as ‘like-minded’ in that they were interested in the overall subject – for instance football, in the first place.
John I wish you were right but it appears as if we have all been caught by the umbrella.
anna, i’m with john on this one.
Me, I’m with Bill Malcom, he’s the expert.
I’m with the Woolwıch.
Didn’t the Woolwich get swallowed up by Cheltenham and Gloucester or someone?
Thank you for the response. You have not, of course, answered the two points I made: that the rapporteurs themselves describe their output as “recommendations”. Neither in the UK nor anywhere else in the EU do such recommendations have the force of law.
Much more importantly you have somehow managed to miss the point I made that a forum CANNOT be included in the terms since, by definition, a forum is for NON-LIKE-MINDED people, not LIKE- MINDED people.
That’s me finished here and no doubt you will have your last word. I am rather surprised that you had not realised that these little Euro/bureauocrats were trying to be trendy and step on the “people at risk on Facebook type sites” bandwagon, not the forum scene. The latter is much too tied up with the question of free speech, including free speech on blogs, for the Crats to go anywhere near it.
By all means stick to your guns. I am merely telling you why no action of any sort will be taken against any forums as a result of this stuff. As you will see.
John,
I think you must have been reading a different report. That report was not by the Rapporteurs, it was by the Working Party set up to oversee the mechanics of the Directive. They are not giving their opinion for the benefit of any future law, but as to whether a particular group of operations, fully defined as per my previous quote from page four of the full report, fall into the definitions covered by that existing directive. Their recommendations are not as to future law, but as to how groups which fall under the existing law can best comply with the law. Of course people do not have to follow their helpful recommendations as to how to comply with the law – but if they break the law, then the law is already there under which they will be punished.
So, John, would you say that a ‘forum’ that seeks to exclude people who do not agree with other people on that forum, cannot, by your definition, be a forum?
In which case, all your worries about whether forums are included or not are rather beside the point – those groups will merely be caught under the banner of ‘SNS can broadly be defined as online communication platforms which enable individuals to join or create networks of like-minded users. In the legal sense, social networks are information society services, as defined in Article 1 paragraph 2 of Directive 98/34/EC as amended by Directive 98/48/EC.
Hmm, could explain my lack of funds.
i have no idea who bill malcolm is ? oh hang on, just read up, you mean william (not that i’m any the wiser), why does william think forums are the same as social networking sites such as facebook ? i see forums as a more ‘refined’ version of usenet where people gather to discuss topics whereas sns are more there to promote individuals and are more like a collection of individual personal html pages collated by a single agency. i read the directive to mean the collator of such pages has a reponsibilty of protection towards it’s users, i fail to see what that has to do with the users of forums or more the people who host such.
The Data Protection Act covers everybody who holds data on individuals. That means me, that means every web page, that means every forum. We all hold data. We know your e-mail address, we know your IP address. We have a duty under the law to keep that informations safe and not to give it to anyone without your permission – or a court order.
Some forums know a great deal more than that about you, because they also host a database which contains all the private messages sent between members, in circumstances where they might not be so cautious in their thoughts.
The point that John is so wilfully ignoring, as I suspect is his intention is that the report is not offering an opinion on a new law, it is defining who falls under the existing law. We all fall under the law as Data Processors, but those of us who are Data Controllers, face a stiffer penalty.
Those forums who facilitate interaction between those whose data they hold – ie by providing a way in which members can contact each other ‘out of sight’ as it were, rather than just post as you are doing now, in the opinion of the Working Party, are Data Controllers, not just processors, and therefore the Working Party is making recommendations to them which would, if followed, enable them to steer clear of being caught by the stiffer penalties awarded to them if they are found to be Data Controllers and do not take care to protect the data which they hold.
‘So, John, would you say that a ‘forum’ that seeks to exclude people who do not agree with other people on that forum, cannot, by your definition, be a forum?’
anna, i know your last response was not directed at me but with all due respect i think you are clutching at straws with this argument.
John argument was slightly ridiculous in that he was trying to suggest that a ‘a forum CANNOT be included in the terms since, by definition, a forum is for NON-LIKE-MINDED people, not LIKE- MINDED people’.
I have every reason to suspect that John comes from a forum that specifically excludes dissenting voices. Hence my comment.
The definition of a forum is as follows.
fo·rum (fôrm, fr-)
n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)
1.
a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
b. A public meeting place for open discussion.
c. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.
2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
3. A court of law; a tribunal.
forums are different than sns, we’ve already explained why, they have different objectives and from what i understand so far is that the sns sites have recived directives of how to behave concerning users safety, i don’t have a a problem with that, their very make-up does pose a risk to naive users. your aguement with data protection i have difficulties with, not because it’s neccessairly wrong but because of the way internet works.
i said earlier i see forums as a bit of an extension or refinement of usenet and perhaps it is because of that that i fail to see the difficulties, for, anyone who posted to usenet would have left a trace, that is, would have been definable and findable through their post headings, all of which were automatically stored by the server and later by google and no-one would ever have thought to blame the individual usenet servers for not keeping such information secure or hidden, it was simply the way it worked and there was no way such could have been expected.
sns servers are though differnt, they are not forums where people gather to discuss topics, they are, oh i don’t know what to call them, a collection of self promotion html pages with chat (and css if you can hack it) ?, and, to create this collection much data is collected, deliberately harvested even, from individuals and stored. and that date needs protecting, and, also the users who use such sites need to be made aware of what they are letting themselves in for and what the dangers are in using such sites.
Yes, Sam, I agree with you regarding usenet, and straightforward forums, but the PM facility adds in another layer, because people use it as though it was e-mail, and they forget that it is travelling via – not hotmail or google or another reputable company, but via the person who set up the forum, who is retaining a copy of it – and they don’t even know who that person is, or understand that it is not just another anonymous version of e-mail. I keep saying it, its not the forum that is the problem, it is the personal information stored on some of these forums, that people don’t understand is not safe.
A funny thing happened on the way from the forum…..
sam…… oh i don’t know what to call them, a collection of self promotion html pages with chat (and css if you can hack it) ?, Dont you think posting here is a form of self promotıon
Perhaps contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office would clarify exactly the points being disputed?
Only a thought from someone who doesn’t usually post here
saul of course, just couldn’t think of a better was of describing the difference.
anna, i took some time to look at how these forums function, i still don’t quite understand it other than that forums can be hacked pretty much the same way as personal computers can be by exploiting vulnerabilties through poor coding (called sql injection,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection) and that to me is a completely different problem than sns sites are supposed to pose.
Comments on this entry are closed.