The Internet in general and the social communities in particular mean that more and more People leave digital traces on the web – as text, sound, image or video. This in turn means that more and more people Anxiety for her data, yes for her privacy and have their identity. And the ever-present question is: How much can I reveal and what will happen to me?

Best of HR – Berufebilder.de®

Cyberbullying and data theft: does the internet threaten our identity?

On June 15, 2011, ZDF broadcast the show “ZDFzoom – Help, I'm Naked”. It's about Privacy and privacy in the age of social media. Henrik Speck, Professor for Digital Media at the University of Applied Sciences Kaiserslautern, researches the digital life of Thomas Praus and, by linking various pieces of information, not only finds the data that Praus voluntarily publishes in social networks - but also data that he has not actually shared with anyone, such as the name and the place of residence of his parents.

computer scientist of University Darmstadt are developing an Android app for test purposes that reads smartphone data such as contacts or SMS in the background and uploads it to a server. Can we still defend ourselves against this loss of identity? Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt had a creative suggestion: just change his name. But it's not that simple, as the Cologne registrar Lutz Zacharias explains at the end of the film: anyone who voluntarily goes online is responsible for what happens to their data there. This is not an important reason for a name change.

How important is anonymity?

When thousands gathered in Cairo in January 2011, mostly Boy When people gather to protest against the government, this is the start of the largest wave of demonstrations in Egypt in years, which finally ended with President Mubarak's resignation. But that's not all: in the years that followed, unrest broke out in more and more Arab countries. However, the revolutions against the old rulers in these countries did not come overnight. They have grown secretly over the past few years – on the Internet. The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain in particular can be attributed to the rapid spread of the World Wide Web in these countries. The increasing use of the internet is one of the reasons why the first revolutions in the Arab world took place in Tunisia and Egypt. Freedom of opinion and diversity of opinion – what governments otherwise prohibit is possible on the internet, for example on political blogs. And even more: via social networks like Facebook was it possible for the demonstrators to hold their events in the first place to organize. The changes in the Arab world were therefore reported by the western media fast to the Facebook-Revolution highly stylized and social networks seen as indispensable for democracy.

But in order for social networks to function in this way, users must be protected from government access for sure be able to move freely and share. In addition to encryption mechanisms, the most effective protection mechanism would be to exchange information anonymously. However, as computer scientists George Danezis and Seda Gürses write, it is technically difficult to guarantee XNUMX% anonymity. Because even anonymized data sets can be de-anonymized using appropriate tools. Added to this is that itself from anonymous data user profiles draw up if a service is used frequently. On page 92 of the article it says: The more 'data mining' is carried out, the more data from different sources can be compared with each other, the more likely it will be that users will be identified or that anonymous traces will be traced back to specific transmitters.

Anonymity vs. Identity theft

In an episode of the series “Elektroischer Reporter” produced for ZDF, the psychologist Peter Kruse explains that people who are constantly being watched only do what is expected of them and consciously or unconsciously submit to the norm: “If you constantly under observation, you are no longer authentic. You have to be able to behave like a genius provocateur who doesn't give a damn who's watching, who's just being himself. Otherwise the whole system becomes a prison.” The transparent post-privacy man Future So an open but well-behaved being who is constantly careful not to step out of line? Fear that it will come to that critic, if it is not discussed in good time whether we are really prepared to make any statement on the Internet under our real names - without knowing what possibilities there will be tomorrow to link them together. This discussion was about the question of how the topic of anonymity on the Internet should be dealt with in the future.

But you can also identify your identity online in a completely different way verlieren: Also Tina Groll, editor at ZEIT ONLINE, has experienced a Kafkaesque situation: At the end of 2009, she was suddenly faced with debt collection claims from Companys confronted with whom she had never bought anything. Research revealed that it was a case of so-called identity theft. With a fictional eMail-Address and real data that the thieves light found on the Internet was published under the editor's name in various Online-Shops and the goods were sent to the wrong address. When the thieves didn't pay, the companies sent the collection demands to the real Tina Groll. She described her absurd situation in a post ZEIT ONLINE: “It sounds ridiculous, but: I'm afraid to open the mailbox. Almost every day, reminders and threatening letters from debt collection companies flutter into my house. 'Because you still haven't responded to the aforementioned demands, we are now initiating the dunning procedure', it says, for example. dept I am said to have made and purchased goods from companies whose names I have never heard. Things were delivered to addresses that were never mine. There are said to be people there who 'can testify without a doubt that you, Tina Groll, lived there', a collection agency wrote to me. There are even arrest warrants against me – and that is completely through no fault of my own.”

"Look how embarrassing!" - cyberbullying

But our identity can be damaged in a completely different way on the Internet: That is when our good name is knowingly dragged through the dirt by others. And that happens faster than many think.

Cyberbullying, also called cyberbullying, is the use of the Internet to insult, threaten or denigrate others. And these experiences are usually made by very young people. The current JIM study shows: 15 percent of the young people surveyed have already found out what it is like when someone spreads embarrassing or insulting pictures or videos of the respondent on the Internet. At 17 percent, girls are slightly more affected than boys (13 percent). The following applies: The older the adolescents get, the more frequently such incidents occur: While only six percent of 12 to 13 year olds report unwanted dissemination of images, this proportion rises to around a fifth among those 16 and over ( 14-15 years: 14 percent, 16-17 years: 21 percent, 18-19 years: 18 percent). On a similar scale, Internet users can also report that generally false or insulting statements about themselves have been circulated. However, beyond the age groups, there are also clear differences with regard to the level of education - young people with a secondary school background report almost twice as often as high school students about being victims of insults on the Internet. Occasionally it also happened that not only lies and denigrations were brought into circulation, but also fake accounts were created under a false name. And: a good quarter of the young people reported that someone in their circle of acquaintances had already been targeted via the Internet.

It is not a phenomenon of the Internet age that people are more or less deliberately bullied or bullied by others. The way is new. True was Bullying It has never been a fight with open visors, but the Internet offers bullies, who mostly act anonymously, completely new possibilities. On the one hand, it is much easier to spy on potential victims via social networks via weak points and potential points of attack - if someone has a targeted one SALE plans. Or they provide the material for spontaneous bullying actions in the form of embarrassing photos themselves. In addition, the Internet offers the perpetrators the opportunity to act completely unrecognized themselves. This apparent protection of anonymity makes many people forget their scruples about claiming false facts.

Social networks as a stage for bullies

And an important aspect that is unfortunately often forgotten: social networks in particular offer perpetrators not only protection, but also a large stage with a greedy thirst for new content Audience, which is only too ready to applaud them. Or even join in. The bullies feel Of course, the claqueurs further strengthened their cowardly actions and so they continue all the more willingly. Conversely, for the victim, the painful effect is multiplied even further: in the past, in the schoolyard, you could guess the whispering of the others, but you were never directly confronted with it. Now you can practically see in black and white what others say and think about you. Worse still, such remarks are often thoughtlessly thrown away because it's cool and funny. In spoken language, such insults would fade away within a few seconds, but they can sometimes still be found on the Internet for years. No wonder cyberbullying victims have already committed suicide.

Because one is comparatively powerless against this kind of reputation and identity damage. There are certainly legal options, but by the time they take effect, the attacks or embarrassing photos or videos have already found their audience, and even more so, if you're unlucky, the Streisand effect occurs. The same applies to what is also a rather difficult attempt to delete the precarious information or have it deleted. So what to do? The best Solution would actually be: sitting out. And stand by yourself. Nothing is eaten as hot as it is cooked. The speed of Communication also has advantages: after a short time, the next sow is driven through the village and the bullying attack, which upset the minds yesterday, will be forgotten by many tomorrow. Only the person affected probably suffers significantly longer from the consequences. And especially for young people, psychological help is definitely advisable in such a situation.

Some might wish for Axel Fischer's ban on masking for the Internet. But that wouldn't deter bullies either. And staying out of social networks entirely, as some believe, is also not an effective means of combating bullying. Because even if you are not represented, others still spread their negative information. In the long term, one should rather make sure that the data can no longer be found, or at least not that easy to find. For example, by submitting a request for deletion to the operator of the relevant network. Or by simply making sure that the positive information is found first. To do just that, you have to study the subject in depth. Unfortunately, falling into a panic-like internet phobia doesn't help. Even if the media and politicians keep trying to get us there with their strange proposals.

How secure are social networks?

In 2010 were Employees of the Stiftung Warentest on hackers: With the permission of the operators, the testers wanted to find out whether social networks adequately protect their users' data against attacks from outside. Only six of the ten networks examined gave permission. In addition to Xing, the large US networks Fac also rejected the testebook, Myspace and LinkedIn. They were devalued in the test due to a lack of transparency.

In some networks such as Stayfriends it only took a few days for the testers to pass the password barrier. The self-proclaimed hackers could have taken over any user account and could have accessed and changed all the data there. In the case of Lokalisten.de and Werden-wen.de, it was especially easy to break into the accounts if the users provided them with a password that was too simple. The testers also noticed negatively that access to all networks via mobile devices such as cell phones was rather unprotected. Overall, none of the networks tested received top marks: the German Netzweken localists wer-knows-wen and Xing were certified as satisfactory and with clear defects. After all, the German networks, with the exception of localists, handled their user data carefully. This also applies to the test winners schülerVZ and studiVZ, which belong to the Georg von Holtzbrinck publishing group. The testers certified them with exemplary rights for users and good handling of user data, but also with a few deficiencies in data security and youth protection, which is why the test winner studiVZ only got an overall grade of 2,2. In any case, the VZ networks have already had one or two data protection scandals behind them. In contrast, American networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn or MySpace, which also “shone” with their lack of transparency and problematic terms and conditions.

Especially Facebook has stood out time and again in recent years with data protection violations. As early as 2009, the changes to the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) caused an uproar among users. Because the new terms and conditions not only ensure that accounts can no longer be created under someone else's name, but also wanted, in addition to with, to deny users their rights to their own content. Facebook wanted to approve unrestricted rights to the transfer of commercial data to third parties - and that with all data that was ever in the Network fed in even if the accounts were deleted. After violent reactions, Facebook finally back to the previous data protection guidelines. However, Facebook-Founders Mark Zuckerberg points out in the company blog that when a message is sent, for example, it is automatically copied so that it, like a eMail also, it is difficult to delete them afterwards. In the current data protection policy, it is currently somewhat reassuringly: “Removed or deleted data can be saved for a period of max. 90 days are still available in backup copies, but are no longer available to others. ”However, Facebook in the same policy, there is no doubt that these terms and conditions can also be changed at any time: we can modify these data protection guidelines in accordance with the declaration of rights and obligations of Facebook change the procedure described. Users should therefore always be vigilant about the processes and, if necessary, not only deactivate their account, but also have all data deleted completely and permanently.

Alternatives to Facebook?

In general: delete an account and get one that is less questionable in terms of data protection Alternatives to faxebook search - the solution could be so simple. The only problem is that, especially in the more secure VZ networks, the number of members continued to decline for so long that they finally had to close. That although the Stuttgart publishing group Georg von Holtzbrinck was still looking for a buyer for the VZ group through the investment bank Goldman Sachs. Ultimately, it may also be due to the fact that Facebook have significantly larger resources of programmers and designers - and with a much larger one awareness can appear in the media. Added to this is the utility: While Facebook for many people there seems to be no alternative, because “everyone” was there.

This is the only way to explain that other alternatives also disappeared from the scene again, e.g. the prominent Google+, which was initially celebrated as a light of hope at the end of the tunnel, which made the Zuckerberg empire, with its immense number of members, the No. . 1 could dispute. At his introduction, the journalist Richard Gutjahr wrote on his blog:

“The real reason though, why Google+ a Success could be has nothing to do with Technology to do: Google+ is Facebook; but not from Facebook. The net world is eagerly waiting for an alternative to the big blue face notebook. The friends platform currently has around 750 million members. But also with Facebook you know: In the online world, the competition is just a mouse click away. "

From the rain in the eaves

In any case, the fact that Google Facebook who wanted to contest world domination, did not have a good feeling with data protection officers. It seemed kind of like going from bad to worse. Because even Goolge is by no means undisputed when it comes to data protection: Similar to Mark Zuckerberg, Google's ex-CEO Eric Schmidt had one too Rede in Berlin 2010 that Concept of privacy declared obsolete.

It doesn't stop at intent: For example, Gmail users agree that their entire eMail-Data, i.e. the content of incoming and outgoing data, is automatically screened by a bot to identify suitable Advertising to be able to market. But Google also collects data from users about their preferences, habits and whereabouts when they search, use the Google calendar, Google Maps or use the Google Android operating system on their smartphones.

Google vs Facebook?

After all, Google+ seemed to do a lot better, especially when it comes to the further use of the data for advertising purposes, as journalist Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti writes:

“Unlike Facebook However, the usage rights can only be transferred non-exclusively to Google. A tool called 'Data Liberation' also allows users to export their data at any time for use in other services ... Users can also set how precisely the ads they see should be tailored to them. "

How secure are social networks?

Shortly after the introduction of Google+, it became known that Google blocks profiles of users who have registered under a pseudonym - either only the Google+ profile or the entire Google account, so that no more access to other services like Gmail or the calendar was possible. Absurdly, the blocked accounts also included the “German Central Library for Economic Sciences”, profiles of newspapers such as “Der Freitag”, “Berliner Morgenpost” or William Shattner, known from Star Trek. The fact that some profiles were activated again after complaints or press reports only shows how inconsistently Google proceeded. Apparently, the group's main concern was to identify and switch off fake accounts in good time. Finally, the group also admitted mistakes, promised to warn its users about the blocking in the future and about ways to think about allowing nicknames in the future.

the software Developer and Adviser Enno Park, whose Googl+ profile “Die Ennomane” was also briefly blocked, aptly outlined the absurd situation: “Google's community guidelines stipulate that you should use the name under which 'friends and acquaintances address you', and that it's OK to call yourself Micha instead of Michael. This is not a ban on pseudonyms or stage names. The problem is that no one, not even Google itself, decide know when a pseudonym is actually allowed according to this rule. Strictly speaking, in the so-called 'real Life' Not addressed under my pseudonym, but it's the better known on the net."

Now there are people who were happy about this action by Google. For example, because the trolls, who post undifferentiated taunts on the Internet under the guise of anonymity, are a thorn in their side Eye are. Or because they hope to be able to identify potential criminals and pedophiles at an early stage in this way. It was not for nothing that the CDU politician, chairman of the Commission of Inquiry “Internet and digital Society” of the German Bundestag enthusiastic approval for his call for a ban on face masks on the Internet. Among other things on his Facebook-Page he explained: “It cannot be that many citizens hide behind self-chosen pseudonyms in forums or other network facilities and thus supposedly abstain from any responsibility for statements and Behavior revoke." A little later, however, Fischer made himself look ridiculous when it came out that he himself was blogging anonymously, as the network activist Christian Heller commented:

“When Google gives us forms in which we should fit in in order to use Google - then Google sets influential norms and precedents ... But I find it much more important here than with Facebook, because Facebook is already North Korea and hardly reformable. With a service as young as Google+, on the other hand, I believe that a lot can still be changed through behavioral pressure. "

Pseudonyms in the network - useful or not?

But not only the network activists speak out in favor of pseudonyms and anonymity on the Internet: A few months ago, Google itself was in favor of pseudonyms because they help to protect free expression of opinion. And in § 13 of the German Telemedia Act it is anchored: “(6) The service provider must enable the use of telemedia and its payment anonymously or under a pseudonym, insofar as this is technically possible and reasonable. The user is to be informed about this possibility. " A response from Google press spokesman Stefan Keuchle to a user request on Google+ shows how bigoted Google is in handling the names that are so important to users: “In order to be able to use G +, we ask for a first and last name. These are the 'rules of the game' that a user has to accept. But: Nobody asks for proof of identity. The people you describe who rely on anonymity will surely use G + with an appropriate name. "

Or to put it another way: Of course, users can use a pseudonym - as long as they choose the name so cleverly that Google does not notice it. However, this system protects exactly those who want to use Google to bully around or worse - precisely because the identity does not have to be proven. So even if such a fake troll account is shut down, the user in question will simply shrug and open a new one. Conversely, anyone who absolutely wants to remain anonymous or – for political reasons, has to – is the only option. But then he has to live with the constant danger that his profile, maybe even his entire Google account, will be rendered unusable. And is there the arbitrariness delivered by Google. The following example shows how this can end:

When the account is gone: Internet identity trap

On Thursday, July 27, 2011, Thorsten Edinger's little online world collapsed: his Google account was unexpectedly deleted. With all data! In a comment he describes his feelings – and criticizes the behavior of Google: “The emails I wrote to Google went unanswered. At least Stefan Keuchel, the spokesman for Google Germany, offered me his help on Friday - even if he can't promise me anything - but I haven't heard from him yet. I find it irresponsible, people who have been loyal for years customers from Google, just like that, without giving them the opportunity to download their data or at least confronting them with the allegations. A simple hint that I had violated the following ToS, with the deletion of the corresponding illegal data, would have scared me so much that I would never have made that mistake again. But locking myself out of all Google services — yes, I had outsourced more than 80% of my online life to Google — is like a kick in the gut. I can't get mine Emails, to my documents and invoices, no longer to my photos, my contacts, my RSS feeds. Yes, my blog has been deleted. Until the middle of the week I could still claim that I was a big fan of Google, and whenever I had the opportunity, I tried to bring Google closer to my friends and acquaintances. That has now changed suddenly. All my data for the past 6 years is lost. All gone. You feel damned empty without anything. "

Edinger is not an isolated case. At least one other case is known from the USA in which a seven-year-old account could suddenly no longer be used. The resulting scenario is reminiscent of Kafka's trial, in which the accused K. wanders around seeking help and always meets a wall of silence. It is a similar situation for Google users who have been robbed of their online life and who do not even know what exactly they have violated the Google Terms of Service with. And there could be even more in the course of the discussion about the anonymization of Google+ profiles.

Kai Biermann, editor of ZEIT ONLINE did Facebook and Google+ compared. And came despite all of the above Problems the result: Google+ is actually a little bit better. Although Biermann leaves no doubt that Google+, like Facebook, was created so that users can tell friends, acquaintances and the company itself as much as possible about themselves. Nevertheless, you could change this on Google+ intuitively and with a few clicks, while on Facebook first have to dig through pages of explanatory texts. And users could also organize their contacts quickly and easily in circles, while at Facebook the possibility of sorting friends and acquaintances into groups was only added later and is therefore correspondingly unknown. In the end, Biermann comes to the clear conclusion: “When it comes to transparency, control and usability of privacy, Google+ is the klare Winner."

Diaspora and Co: Trying to create more alternatives

The blogger Martin Weigert criticized exactly this situation:

“…that the two leading digital communication and interaction channels of the digital Welt himself in private Hand located and operated by for-profit companies. This fact is worrying, considering how dependent many users, but also organizations and companies, are now on the two companies. Such dependence on individual commercial providers is never desirable. Especially not when there is no alternative. And it is precisely the lack of an independent, non-profit alternative that is actually unfortunate.”

In the course of time there have been more or less hyped alternatives:

For example the microblogging service http://identi.ca, an open alternative to Twitter. identi.ca wanted to guarantee users freedom and transparency by using the free software StatusNet, which users can also install on their own servers.

Diaspora, which appeared in the media in 2010 as an alternative to Facebook hyped: Daniel Grippi, Maxwell Salzberg, Raphael Sofaer and Ilya Zhitomirskiy, all ITNew York University students, prompted by the ongoing privacy debates at Facebook, do some things differently than the competition: Your social network should be open-source, connect users directly and not via a central point, give them full control over their data and protect communication with their own contacts through encryption. The discussions about Facebook It was thanks to the four founders that they were able to raise more than $ 200.000 for the project in just a few weeks. However, not much has happened: After all, Diaspora impressed with its clear, minimalist design and the ability to easily and clearly add friends in so-called aspects - two points, by the way, which Google+ should have been guided by. However, critics complain that these basic functions of diaspora are not sufficient to support Facebook or Google+ and that the developers confine themselves too much to working in private and don't do enough advertising. Because even if co-founder Maxwell Salzberg came to the re:publica in Berlin in 2011, it was possible Lecture but hardly convincing.