To not want to share my identity to access Social Media.

[Dbank]

With the current proposals to limit social media to over 16, would by definition require everyone to use some form of age verification to continue to have access.

Would you be happy to submit personal information, be it a bank card, a passport or a facial image to a third party, most probably based outside of the UK and not subject to GDPR?

Exactly.

From a National security point of view, having a way to verify users on SM is incredible valuable.

As most SM companies already give security services, "back door" access to their data, it's inconceivable they wouldn't share your "ID component" either knowingly or inadvertently.

There appears to be virtually no understanding or concern from the media or public, and any dissent is justified by "keeping children safe", which whilst a noble cause in reality is the complete opposite of what this act will achieve.

Asking anyone to share their ID with a random un-regulated site is completely contradictory to all cyber security advice, let alone encouraging users to install "free VPN" services that will completely compromise all the users on your network as is happening with users who wish access perfectly legal porn, but don't want to share their ID.

Well, what's your solution then?

You share your personal details with LOADS of places.

Any online shopping knows your name, where you live, possibly your date of birth etc
You're on CCTV most days. Your passport details are held by hotels etc

But this is a step too far?

When you say there is 'no understanding', are you suggesting that you have superior knowledge? In the same way that the 'do your research' nutjobs in covid felt they had superior knowledge to global medical and scientific experts?

Do you not think that the reason there isn't major concern by the public and the media could be that there is actually no need for major concern? And that you are making an Everest sized mountain out of a molehill and maybe fallen down a rabbit hole of alarmist conspiracy theories?

It always confuses me why people get so hysterical about digital ID. Unless you've got something to hide, what's the problem? It's almost as if those that do have something to hide are driving the scaremongering alarmism in an effort to protect themselves...

I only really use MN which is a forum rather than SM but I just wouldn't use it, it's not one of those essential things of life. Don't use Facebook or TikTok

MN is social media & I doubt mN will be covered by any future legislation in UK.
OP has the anonymity they want already.

Lots of SM platforms aren't covered under the Aussie legislation, btw. Aussie youngsters can watch as many videos as they like on BitChute or Rumble. Coz... no good reason. WhatsApp isn't included, either, afaik.

GDPR applies to any company that deals or could potentially deal within Europe, regardless of where they are based - if this helps.

Absolutely not.

Many employers already request your social media details - which is why many people have anonymous ones. Many of us use nicknames, so clients/ parents if you are a teacher/ employers/ abusive ex etc. cannot find you.

It's not about trolling, it's about privacy.

There's a lot of information available, but it's up to us to try to manage it and limit it. The solution is not to freely add more.

It's a very dangerous move, I don't want to share my identity either. There are enough fraud and deep fake around/

Null

I have a 15 year + background in global IT implementations, usually for products with a focus on security, so I believe I do have some insight on the subject.
Perhaps I'm wrong to be concerned, and people do understand the risks, hence posing this as a AIBU to gauge a response.
I support the idea of Digital ID, provided that it's done well. (Attempting to manage a dataset of this complexity without a unique identifier is perverse at best)
Ironically Digital ID, may be a better way to verify your age than a totally un-regulated third party, that may not be subject to GDPR, or any UK legislation.

Like they care

I’d welcome having the provide ID to join social media. I think it would cut down bullying and bad behaviour as people won’t feel so anonymous.

You can still be anonymous on SM, it's the implications of sharing your identity to gain age verification that I'm highlighting.

i.e. A third party will be able to make the link between an element of your ID and your "anonymous" postings on SM.

If it saves one child.

... even if it puts more children at risk, as they install malware thinking it's a VPN client?

As is already happening as a result of the online safety act.

The fine for a deliberate breach of GDPR is in the millions or 4% of yearly turnover, whichever is higher.

Oh great, I'll stop worrying about it then....

But why would anybody object to measures intended to protect children ?

Now you see how shit laws get passed.

I'm a DBS recruiter as part of my job, and I don't see how any reasonable person could object to having checks for criminal records before being allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults.

However, I recently saw a notice about the companies that additionally demand people's SM profiles, so that they can check it for what they may consider 'red flags' (or even just loftily declaring you as 'not the kind of person we want working for us') - and I was horrified. Why don't they just go the whole hog and demand to instal a camera in your living room, read your diary and go through your bins?

People trot out the old 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' chestnut; but wanting privacy and personal dignity is absolutely nothing to do with wrongdoing. If anybody disagrees, post your bank statement on this thread - if you've not bought anything illegal or immoral, you'll be fine, eh?; and certainly don't 'prove' that you're up to something shady or wrong by closing and locking the cubicle door next time you use a public toilet.

There's definitely an elephant in the room in that the people making the restrictive laws will be mainly middle-aged (as am I) or older; whilst the people they're aimed at restricting are clearly the tween and teenagers.

Now, which of those two groups are the digital natives and, on the whole, far more adept and understanding of technology as second nature than the other group?

I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to protect children in any way; but this law is going to be so easy to bypass by those who want to. I saw a photo (on SM!) of a person standing in front of a random heavily-locked gate in the middle of an otherwise empty and completely unfenced field, and the caption was something like "When BBC iPlayer asks you to confirm that you have a TV licence". This will be very similar.

No.

Yes I would. Social media is optional, we don’t have a right to it. Comply with whatever rules have been brought in or stay off it.

whilst you (and young Australian) people can use VPNs the point is long term generational change. Look how well it’s worked with smoking. It’s not instant or even short term.

As predicted

I'm a DBS recruiter as part of my job, and I don't see how any reasonable person could object to having checks for criminal records before being allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults.

I don't quite follow the point that you're making?

social media might be optional but privacy is not.