{"id":1172,"date":"2011-03-15T05:36:41","date_gmt":"2011-03-15T13:36:41","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1172"},"modified":"2011-03-20T09:55:13","modified_gmt":"2011-03-20T17:55:13","slug":"social-network-users-bill-of-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/?p=1172","title":{"rendered":"Social Network Users’ Bill of Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

The\u00a0 “Social Network Users\u2019 Bill of Rights<\/span><\/a>” panel at the South by Southwest Interactive (SXSW) conference last Friday\u00a0had something that most panels lack:\u00a0 an outcome.\u00a0\u00a0The goal was\u00a0to\u00a0get the\u00a0SXSWi community\u00a0to cast their votes\u00a0and help to shape a bill of rights that would\u00a0reflect the\u00a0participation of many thousands of people using the social networks.<\/p>\n

The idea of getting\u00a0broad communities\u00a0to vote on this is pretty interesting.\u00a0 Panelist Lisa Borodkin wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n

There is no good way currently of collecting hard, empirical, quantitative data about the preferences of a large number of social network users. There is a need to have user input into the formation of social norms, because courts interpreting values such as “expectations of privacy” often look to social network sites policies and practices.<\/p>\n

Where did the Bill of Rights come from?\u00a0 The\u00a0document\u00a0was written collaboratively <\/a>over four days at\u00a0last year's Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference<\/a>\u00a0and since the final version was published <\/a>has been collecting votes through\u00a0pages like this one<\/a>.\u00a0 Voting is open until June 15, 2011 – the “anniversary of the date the U.S. government asked Twitter to delay its scheduled server maintenance as a critical communication tool for use in the 2009 Iran elections”.\u00a0\u00a0And guess what?\u00a0 That date also coincides with this year's Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Bill – admirably straightforward and aimed at real\u00a0people – reads as follows<\/a>:<\/p>\n

We the users expect social network sites to provide us the following rights in their Terms of Service, Privacy Policies, and implementations of their system:<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Honesty: Honor your privacy policy and terms of service<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. Clarity: Make sure that policies, terms of service, and settings are easy to find and understand<\/em><\/li>\n
  3. Freedom of speech: Do not delete or modify my data without a clear policy and justification<\/em><\/li>\n
  4. Empowerment : Support assistive technologies and universal accessibility<\/em><\/li>\n
  5. Self-protection: Support privacy-enhancing technologies<\/em><\/li>\n
  6. Data minimization: Minimize the information I am required to provide and share with others<\/em><\/li>\n
  7. Control: Let me control my data, and don\u2019t facilitate sharing it unless I agree first<\/em><\/li>\n
  8. Predictability: Obtain my prior consent before significantly changing who can see my data.<\/em><\/li>\n
  9. Data portability: Make it easy for me to obtain a copy of my data<\/em><\/li>\n
  10. Protection: Treat my data as securely as your own confidential data unless I choose to share it, and notify me if it is compromised<\/em><\/li>\n
  11. Right to know: Show me how you are using my data and allow me to see who and what has access to it.<\/em><\/li>\n
  12. Right to self-define: Let me create more than one identity and use pseudonyms. Do not link them without my permission.<\/em><\/li>\n
  13. Right to appeal: Allow me to appeal punitive actions<\/em><\/li>\n
  14. Right to withdraw: Allow me to delete my account, and remove my data<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    It will be interesting to see\u00a0whether social networking sites engage with this initiative.\u00a0\u00a0Sixestate<\/a> reported some time ago\u00a0that Facebook objected to\u00a0requiring support for\u00a0pseudonyms.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    While I support all other aspects of the Bill, I too think it is a mistake to\u00a0mandate that ALL communities\u00a0MUST support pseudonymity or be in violation of the Bill<\/em>…\u00a0\u00a0In all other respects, the Bill is consistent with the Laws of Identity<\/a>.\u00a0 However the Laws <\/a>envisaged a continuum of approaches to identification, and argued that all have their place for different purposes.\u00a0 I think this is much closer to the mark and\u00a0Right 12\u00a0should be amended.\u00a0 The\u00a0fundamental point\u00a0is that we\u00a0must have the\u00a0RIGHT\u00a0to form and participate in communities that\u00a0DO choose to support pseudonymity.\u00a0\u00a0This doesn't mean we ONLY have the right to participate in such communities.<\/p>\n

    Where do the organizers want to go next? Jon Pincus writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    Here\u2019s a few ideas:<\/p>\n