I propose the following data to be a new case:
| Fields | Data |
|---|---|
| Name | You must provide your identifiable information |
| Description | Services require users to provide their identifiable information, including phone number, iD number and other information. Services may still allow pseudonyms in the foreground. |
| Classification | bad |
| Topic | Topic Anonymity (ToS;DR Phoenix) |
| Weight | 80 |
First, I don’t know if it should cover Case 214: You must provide your legal name, pseudonyms are not allowed but this case is broader than it.
Second, the case is proposed because of China Internet Security Law, which requires every Internet service providers to ask users for identifiable information (In this case, phone number) if they want to use their service. Well…
I absolutely agree with the creation of this case, and its difference with case 214 is important to raise, so I think they should be separated.
I also believe we should create a neutral case, similar to Case 213: Users are not allowed to use pseudonyms, as trust and transparency between users regarding their identities is relevant to the service. for services requiring identifiable information to properly work (e.g. requiring DNA data to create Family Trees and then comparing them to other people by allowing pseudonyms).
Its title could be You must provide your identifiable information, but it makes sense for this service
In my opinion, my purposed case is more like “You must provide your identifiable information, and it does not make sense for this service” However, the “make sense” should be clarified since gov like Chinese gov can claim that their practice, including collecting facial information of every gamers, “makes sense” in their point of view.
So it could be clarified in the description of your case that the purposes of the service do not normally require identifiable information.
The full description could be:
The Service requires users to provide their identifiable information, including phone number, iD number and other information, even though this data collection isn't essential for the purposes of the service. They may still allow pseudonyms in the foreground.
Making sense would mean that it’s reasonably essential to provide the services, regardless of data retention laws.
I like the idea that this point brings and agree that it is different from Case 214.
But what about services like Signal, which do require users to provide a phone number, but do not require ID number and other information? I think there should be a point to make possible to tell the difference between services that do require phone numbers from ones that do not (e.g. Signal, Telegram, Whatsapp,etc. vs Element/Matrix, IRC, XMPP, etc.).
Actually, my proposed case is originally for the situation you said. In mainland China, Internet service are required to ask for phone number, but not ID number. Despite this, every phone number is tied to a ID number in mainland China. So the solution is to change “and” to “or”.
To sum up, the new Case would be:
| Fields | Data |
|---|---|
| Name | You must provide your identifiable information |
| Description | The Service requires users to provide their identifiable information, including phone number, iD number or other information, even though this data collection isn’t essential for the purposes of the service. They may still allow pseudonyms in the foreground. |
If no other opinions are expressed in the next few days, I’ll add it to Phoenix!
Edit: the case has been created