Anonymity on social networks
The internet is all advantages. Or at least, that’s how it seems. Access to unlimited information, unimaginable resources, artificial intelligence, and vast amounts of user-generated content. An inexhaustible source of material but also the most powerful megaphone that exists, where what you have to say always matters… and where, consequently, we will find an answer (or more than one), even if we don’t always like it. More specifically, social networks have succeeded, among other things, in changing the way we interact, connecting us across thousands of miles, giving a voice to countless people while generating enormous profits. All this in exchange for a single requirement: user registration via an account or profile. As a general rule, this registration is free, which facilitates the popularity of these platforms in society, turning them into a catalyst for significant social, cultural, and, above all, political movements.
But not everything that glitters is gold — or AI — as certain behaviours have proliferated on these platforms for some time now that can be considered, at the very least, reprehensible in a democratic society: disparaging comments, insults, humiliations, and, in many cases, verbal abuse and blatant threats, not to mention identity theft through so-called 'fake' accounts, thanks to users' easy access to third-party images and other personal data (what is termed 'digital footprint'). To combat this plague, various legislative proposals have been presented in recent years that involve amending various regulations affecting the digital environment, such as, for example, Law 34/2002, of July 11, on information society services and electronic commerce (‘LSSI’), which would require the providers of these networks to request formal identification from users to create a profile. Some of the proposed amendments are outlined below.
Duty of identification
It is proposed that service providers verify the identity of each user profile and account using the ID card or passport. The main objective is clear: to identify and thus to be able to attribute specific behaviour to a particular individual, addressing the impunity on the internet. However, these days, keeping a copy of an identity document is a risky enterprise considering data protection regulations. Implementing security measures — including pseudonymization — to avoid exposure to security breaches appears to be mandatory.
Amendment of the liability regime
As we know, Article 16 of the LSSI establishes certain exemptions from liability for data storage service providers, based on actual knowledge of unlawful activities and due diligence in removing these contents or denying access once they have been made aware of them. In this regard, combining this regime with a possible mandatory identification of social network users could represent a paradigm shift in attributing responsibility to an individual, with all that this entails. Technology will play a very significant role, as we know it is advancing by leaps and bounds and does not always keep pace with legislative developments.
Stricter penalty regime
As with most regulations, imposing penalties for non-compliance serves as a clear deterrent measure, and in this context, some legislative proposals have even set the fine for failing to comply with the identification requirement at 600,001 euros. Judging by the regulations approved over the last 10 years, the increase in the penalty regime is evident, making it difficult to reserve a budget to address these economic blows.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, these providers must be part of the solution to combat reprehensible behaviour — in fact, some already are, as we know there are certain reporting channels and internal rules within the corresponding community — but their scope and consequences must be defined from a transparent and coherent perspective. Nevertheless, with each attempt at regulation, many voices are raised against what they see as the end of anonymity on the internet, which, in some cases, has come to be regarded as a “true” right in the digital age — perhaps confused with the right to personal data protection, which essentially defends control over the information that identifies us, but not the ability to make ourselves invisible in any situation.
However, many organizations in the digital sector are already incorporating these measures to combat fraud and other undesirable practices, implementing the necessary changes to ensure the security of personal data. Applications related to the financial sector, passenger transport services, and even the healthcare sector request the national identity document as a verification method for the user during their registration processes. Ultimately, given the numerous doubts that these proposals have commonly raised, one might ask, on the one hand, what the practical consequences would be for a user who was found guilty of any criminal conduct, beyond those imposed through the judicial process? Would access to social networks be indefinitely restricted? And secondly, does this measure conflict with the right to freedom of expression? And with the right to data protection? Or, in fact, does the lack of anonymity constitute a restriction on freedom of expression? Legislators, you decide.
Read the full article here.
