tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post8073112215692865821..comments2022-12-02T13:41:41.120+00:00Comments on Francis Davey: Google's name policy is not illegalFrancis Daveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-6217181040339070942011-07-27T22:23:14.761+01:002011-07-27T22:23:14.761+01:00Seen this?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/2...Seen this?<br /><br />http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/27/ico_looks_at_google_plus_profiles_debacle/<br /><br />I realise it's the Register, but we shall see.David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-39729817441938373312011-07-27T03:34:37.863+01:002011-07-27T03:34:37.863+01:00I would assert (and have done on your g+ post) tha...I would assert (and have done on your g+ post) that s32 sub 8 defines conveyance in a way which fairly clearly includes what social networks typically do - route signals to users. You may claim it isn't doing so over a communications network (well technically there is always a network even if it is inside one machine), but they do appear to be routing signals so that they reach one or more users (over a web interface or the internal APIs when using the various mobile-phone apps).<br /><br />If such things are not communication services, then by some fairly obvious transforms one can construct a VOIP phone system which also would not count as a communication service.Jon Peatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05405658780096013953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-74378455948521491412011-07-26T11:20:00.274+01:002011-07-26T11:20:00.274+01:00For clarity,
Google Profiles is the Directory. Th...For clarity,<br /><br />Google Profiles is the Directory. This is actually it's own service that pre-dates Google+. Google Profiles were recently switched from allowing private profiles, to only allowing public Profiles. As far as I know, once created it is impossible to disassociate a Google Profile from an account.<br /><br />Google+ is *a* service that depends and mandates use of Google Profiles and dictates certain "community standards" requiring publication of a person's common name. <br /><br />Gtalk and Gmail are services that will be associated with a Google Profile. They are also services bundled into Google+ in the use of their 'Huddle' , 'Hangout' and 'Notification' functions.Jay Blanchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01056825535645601224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-51038835982187214662011-07-26T11:14:20.429+01:002011-07-26T11:14:20.429+01:00Also, I did mention the Gtalk/Gmail link in the or...Also, I did mention the Gtalk/Gmail link in the original post I made on this subject.Jay Blanchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01056825535645601224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-67037982081377671332011-07-26T11:13:29.298+01:002011-07-26T11:13:29.298+01:00By that same reasoning, the only 'opt out'...By that same reasoning, the only 'opt out' ever offered for any directory could be to withdraw from the electronic service, so the entire legislation would be moot. I think that we should dismiss that argument as an attempt to vex legislative intent.Jay Blanchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01056825535645601224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-90371708758680187702011-07-26T10:55:42.973+01:002011-07-26T10:55:42.973+01:00The key question is whether or not section 32(2) i...The key question is whether or not section 32(2) is made out, that is whether google+ provides a service which conveys signals via an electonic communications network and on any reasonable construction of s32 it doesn't. <br /><br />Are you saying that whatever google+ may do, gtalk is a communications service and that google+ is a regulation 18 directory of gtalk? So that anyone signing up to google+ is a gtalk subscriber? That wasn't the point I was responding to.<br /><br />If that was right, then as I understand it you are saying that google+ is a reg. 18 directory. Since we can withdraw from google+ at any time I can't see that there could be a violation of reg. 18.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-84601128114047432282011-07-26T10:42:54.902+01:002011-07-26T10:42:54.902+01:00Your interpretation of the law hinges entirely on ...Your interpretation of the law hinges entirely on your declaration that Google+ is not an electronic communication service. Now, under the actual law's definition, that is only the case if you establish that Google+ is only a content server. That's not going to be easy to prove since it allows direct conversations between it's subscribers.<br /><br />However, Gtalk is clearly an electronic communication service, and all Google+ subscribers are also Gtalk subscribers. (Gtalk is what powers Huddles and Hangouts)<br /><br />So yes, it does meet the definition of a Subscriber Directory. And of course, I did contact ICO to confirm it needed to be investigated, which they did.Jay Blanchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01056825535645601224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-56563198718616015402011-07-26T09:54:38.316+01:002011-07-26T09:54:38.316+01:00This leaves the interesting question of what a &qu...This leaves the interesting question of what a "real name" is.<br /><br />In English law, your name is any name by which you are known to some reasonable (but uncertain) number of people. Many people (particularly stage artistes and writers) are known to far more people by their stage or writing names than by the name they had from birth, and those adopted names are certainly "real" names.<br /><br />It may not be easy for Google to prove a violation of its policy, especially after a user has used an adopted name through its service for long enough to have become widely known by it.Nicholas Bohmnoreply@blogger.com