[xadhominemx]

> An unregulated private company asking you for official government documentation and your real name is definitely tracking you in my opinion.

This is nothing unusual? It’s extremely common for a private company to request identify verification

[winternett]

Sure, for a dentist or doctor's visit, it's totally reasonable. But if you were asked for your ID every time you bought a burger at McDonalds, it would be considered suspect and a potential privacy invasion by most.

The same is the case with social media. They don't need your government ID, and they're not authorized to demand it like the health care industry is.

[SavantIdiot]

We've already agreed in the TOU for our credit cards that the debtor/merchant is entitled to access to information about you from your credit card company. It is far more intrusive than government ID, yet people freak the fuck out about ID but swipe their VISA 10,000 times per second.

This is how Scientology tracked me for almost three decades even after I changed addresses a dozen times. I bought something from them once on Visa, and they constantly got updates on my personal info.

How are you OK with VISA and not OK with ID on a social media site when the former is far worse than the latter?

We've already given up privacy.

Please help me understand if I'm wrong. I'd like to not be so cynical.

[winternett]

Credit Card industries are regulated by law, the laws are weak as well though, and also rarely enforced, so card companies can really push boundaries in secretive ways with privacy invasion anyway.

In contrast to social media, where there is not any substantial regulation yet, it's the wild west with your information right now... They can sell your phone number, anything saved on your phone, everything you post, and even possibly run a keylogger from their mobile app on your device...

Mobile (installed) apps can collect precise location data on you once you install their app... Credit card companies can potentially track you and gather personal data as well if you install their (native) mobile app. As phones evolve, it will eventually become normal to be tracked and to not be able to opt out if regulation (laws) aren't made and enforced to protect individuals from privacy invasion.

This is why I use web sites instead of installing single-use apps, but also why certain companies want to end support for browser based sites, and why some services can only accessed via installed apps.

[SavantIdiot]

> Credit Card industries are regulated by law,

This is a good point. Even though they are ignored, there at least is something to use in litigation.

> and even possibly run a keylogger from their mobile app on your device...

Like the Emoji apps that were doing this years ago.

> instead of installing single-use apps,

I keep my app use extreeeemmely limited.

We need serious regulation on social media sites that collect this much personal information, meaning stuff people post that is intended for a very limited, controlled audience, and not wall posts that are public to everyone. (Like HN.)

I think the problem is what someone pointed out to me yesterday: tying DMs to a "real" identity. Purchases are already tied to who we are, and so are every form we sign that has significance. Phone companies know whos in our address books. Email is 100% insecure, always has been. The last thing to protect is the DMs.... which is probably too late.

[frumper]

Now they can just track the card you used to all your purchases, or maybe even facial recognition. ID's aren't needed for them to know who you are in many cases.

[rvnx]

It's called a loyalty card what you describe

[cratermoon]

The carrot to get you to sign up for the loyalty card is the promise of discount prices. The shelf price says $X, but "Members pay just $Y". Of course $Y is closer to the true price. Sometimes they'll send out a mailer with extra coupons, usually somewhat customized based on your past purchases. But now they get to track all your activity. This is not nefarious to the extent it's used to plan inventory and purchasing, but to the extent that your store profile is sold to other companies, it becomes nefarious.

A casual reading of the terms and conditions might lead a person to object, that it says they don't sell your data. A close reading notes that it says they don't sell to "third parties". But they leave out the fact that any other company the store does business with is not a third party. They technically don't sell your data to them, they provide your data to other companies during the normal course of transacting business with them. Thus, your data flows through the system, unchecked.

[winternett]

Yes, they make a lot more money off of using and selling the data you create than what you save... And they also lay you off as a cashier and make you check out and bag your own groceries... the future is lookin bleak... lol

[nepthar]

> they're not authorized to demand it like the health care industry is.

There is no governing body that determines who is and who is not "authorized" to request ID in the United States.

[winternett]

Yes there is... Congress does it regularly by creating and amending laws like HIPAA.

[frumper]

Which law restricts a business like McDonalds from requesting an ID? It sure isn't HIPAA.

[rubylark]

Is it? Maybe its my unconscious avoidance of industries with that practice, but the only other private corporation I can think of that has requested my ID is Costco. I can't think of a single software service or social media that has wanted my ID for anything. On the other hand, Facebook has never asked for my ID either, I assume because I have an old enough account that I was grandfathered in.

Edit: I thought of two more: airlines and banks. But I assume both of those industries are required to by regulation.

[winternett]

In order to be verified on Twitter and YouTube, you need to present government ID. I wasn't talking about FaceBook in that reference. FaceBook's algorithm likely verifies people over time based on requiring their actual (government record) name versus the content in their posts, possibly combined with facial recognition from posted photos and family associations.

I always chose to never use my real name on any social media accounts, if it was required I'd probably elect to not sign up, but their EULAs frequently are revised to serve whatever purpose they want because there is no meaningful regulation in place to limit their data mining practices on pretty much anyone because others post info about you in some way over time, even if you don't have an account.

[input_sh]

Oh I can think of many others: cryptocurrency exchanges, many payment providers, some server providers, Twitter (during verification), freelancing platforms (like Upwork) and even Pornhub.

Sometimes it's a legal obligation (under KYC), sometimes it's pressure from credit card companies, and sometimes it's just websites making shit up to enforce their own rules.

[winternett]

Crypto exchanges do it because of mandated government income tax reporting requirements and potential for payment fraud (also a regulated industry).

Twitter requires ID and personal information (i.e. your phone number) for verification even from users that are not involved in any sort of purchasing or income scenarios.

Reddit started out not caring about who anyone was, but over time IP based tracking and other things started to creep in...

Private companies that aren't regulated nor involved in conducting regulated business should not be asking for any government issued ID nor personal user data if you ask me.

[freebuju]

There is no legitimate reason for Facebook, or any other social media website, to require a copy of your ID other than for purposes of renting your authentic profile to advertisers.

[xadhominemx]

There are plenty of good arguments for requiring people to use their actual identities on social media. You may think the downsides outweigh the advantages, but it’s absurd to say there is “no legitimate reason”

[woko]

If you are a company whose business is advertisement, you should not get a free pass to *require* *unnecessary* personally identifiable information from your target audience.

There is no good argument for making it a *requirement*. If the platform has issues moderating its content, then there are solutions other than requiring their users to identify themselves. Plus, as we saw, asking for ID does not help fight against problematic content and its spread. The root of the problem may lie elsewhere, e.g. in the system which boosts user-generated content which draws clicks (clickbait) and likes (outrage and fake news). Asking for ID is only good for the targetted advertisement business, telling otherwise is a decoy.

[freebuju]

I don't think am being unreasonable. There is nothing stopping you or any user from consuming the product without proof of government ID. Besides social media networks get hacked all the time.