Here's a bit of food for thought when it comes to the United States (and other countries) residents who choose to be known by their Avatar Name/Pseudonym, and something you may consider retweeting to get the word out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change
In the United States:
Several specific federal court rulings have set precedents regarding both court decreed name changes and common law name changes (changing your name "at will") for the United States.
One may be employed, do business, and enter into other contracts, and sue and be sued under any name they choose at will (Lindon v. First National Bank 10 F. 894, Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1, In re McUlta 189 F. 250).
Such a change carries exactly the same legal weight as a court-decreed name change as long as it is not done with fraudulent intent (In re McUlta 189 F. 250, Christianson v. King County 196 F. 791, United States v. McKay 2 F.2d 257).
Since persons who choose to use Google services, including Google+, under their Avatar Identities, which constitutes a Pseudonym and is thus protected and federally sanctioned within the United States as having the same legal weight as a court-decreed name change, any T.O.S. enacted by Google is an agreement with a legally standing Pseudonym and carries the same weight to legally be both acceptable and binding as the "true" name of the person involved.
In removing Virtual Environment identities from the Google+ service under "breach of TOS", Google as a company is likely breaking federal law in the United States. This also goes for Facebook, since any "legally binding" T.O.S. entered into agreement by an Avatar Identity holds the same weight legally as a Pseudonym and therefore that of using a real name as long as the intent to defraud does not exist.
Since Avatar Identity is not entered into consideration as "fraudulent" intent by default, and Google falls under the jurisdiction of the United States (as does Facebook), it is perfectly legal (at least to US Citizens) to use an Avatar Identity and it is expected that such can be treated with equality such as a real name would be. As for other countries in the world, I suggest you take a look at your local common law name changes statutes to see if these rules also apply to you, though from cursory reading it appears that similar, if not identical, laws are in place.
This is why Multiplicity of Identity must be embraced. This goes for Avatar Identity, Pseudonym or Real Name, as long as they are not used with an intent to defraud. There is no question about whether or not an Avatar Identity constitutes the same legal standing as a true name under any pretext other than with intent to defraud, or under well defined circumstances by which a true name may be required. However, a business such as Google or Facebook does not constitute such precedence to ignore pseudonyms and is not immune to the law nor has any precedence to violate it.
Since OpenSource Obscure (and other Avatar Identities) are/were used without the intent to defraud, but only make use as a legal pseudonym, violation of of the T.O.S. is non-existent and cannot be legally enforced or mandated - even by a private business such as Google or Facebook.
However, each Avatar Identity has a solid legal case against Google and even Facebook, and can be considered wrongful and illegal termination of services under false pretense. The only reason things stay the same is because nobody bothers to challenge the "corporate inspired" norms... when really, they should.
Actually, I think @Botgirlq said it best: “Wonder if the EFF might be interested?”
I bet you they probably would *love* to help out.
Sincerely,
Will Burns | Aeonix Aeon
aka: The guy that may have just started a class action lawsuit
PS: Now would be a good time to rethink your strategy, Google & Facebook
Find me On Google+
Find Me On Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment