Google Deleting Private Profiles

An anonymous reader writes "Google announced that it will no longer support private Google Profiles after July 31. The move comes as Google is rolling out its latest social experiment, Google+. Those who have already been admitted to Google+ will see their Google+ profiles replace their Google Profiles. At the moment the only information Google requires users to reveal is their name and gender."

Comments

Google+

[cgeys]

Google+ is even worse than Facebook on this regard. When you join Google+, your profile is already public to the whole internet and search engines. And because it's Google, they have already indexed it by then. There is no way to set it private before it's already public. Now they also want that people really make everything public in their search engine. Of course it makes business sense for Google, but is not good for users that want privacy. Google even uses good marketing language to soften the user. Such stuff never says "Yes", but it reads "oh that's okay". Dirty tricks.

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been trying out the new profile, and it seems like me that you atomically decide what to share and what not. The options are: anyone on the web, extended circles, your circles, only you, and custom. With custom being able to select which circles can see which information.
Other than that, there is also a "help others find me in search results" opt-in; I suppose this is what you're looking for.

Re:Google+

[makomk]

Errrm... this is less informatiopn than Facebook require you to make public and indexable by search engines, from what I recall.

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

If your Google profile was ALREADY public, that's true. If your Google profile was private (as you would expect from those who care about privacy issues) your are prompted and asked if you want it to become public in order to join Google+. If by the end of this month you do not make it public it will just be deleted, not automatically disclosed. The only mandatory information in the public profile is name and age.

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

Well just don't use it.

I don't use facebook, nor linkedin, nor google, I will not use google+.

I feel very good, have friends, work, hobbies and interest, and don't waste time on social networks trying to find new friends while leaving behind the old real ones.

Social networks are just a fraud.

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Christ, this is modded "Insightful"? It's just more of the same "Look at me! I'm so *ALTERNATIVE*" bollocks people spew across the internet. You don't use Facebook, LinkedIn, Google or Google+ and declare you've got friends, work, hobbies and interest(s)? Good for you! Why the fuck would you think we give a toss? Quit propping up your ego, you useless fat fuck.

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

"don't waste time on social networks trying to find new friends while leaving behind the old real ones"

Right... So you or your friends aren't succesfully using new methods of communication. That's fine, it's not like everyone should be using every form of communication. Calling social networks a fraud because of that is plain stupidity and inability to accept any different ways of communicating as "proper comminucation". Do you use email? mailing lists? phone? Where is the line of fraud drawn?

The above comes from someone who doesn't really use FB much, but can still see how ground breaking it has been for others (mostly in another generation).

Re:Google+

[gsslay]

The only mandatory information in the public profile is name and age

Thereby ensuring that a large percentage of sign ups lie about one, or both.

Re:Google+

[poetmatt]

google is worse than facebook? have you ever seen what facebook does with your data even when you delete your profile?

nice though, we love the whole "GOOGLE IS EVIL" line. keep trottin out the lies all you want.

Re:Google+

[atomicbutterfly]

Agreed. There are plenty of legitimately beneficial uses for Facebook, but Slashdot folks are naturally drawn to the anti-social because of our lifestyle and group culture, and so they don't bother thinking that maybe, just maybe, social networking can be rather useful.

Re:Google+

[web tasarm]

the portals and specially google is forcing the web site owners to add many diffrent apps,buttons etc.one day will come we will just see those buttons on the page openning.I tried to add many things for getting more traffic.More traffic? I thing this is alie and only helps to get traffic to those sites not mine...

Re:Google+

[trum4n]

What exactly are you afraid of?

Re:Google+

[BobNET]

Saying "I don't use Facebook" is becoming the new "I don't own a TV".

Re:Google+

[Kjella]

I feel very good, have friends, work, hobbies and interest, and don't waste time on social networks trying to find new friends while leaving behind the old real ones.

Maybe your friends are just as odd as you then, nothing really wrong with that but the reason most of us feel the social pressure is because almost all my "old real" friends now are on Facebook. That's where they chatter and share pictures and make events and whatnot, it's not that they're purposely shutting you out but you're the special case. You're the one "being difficult", why can't you just get a profile just like everybody else? Sometimes they plain old forget that they have to tell me via a different means than everybody else. So I caved, my profile is on Facebook. And if everyone moved to Google+, I'd probably have to follow. If that hasn't happened to you, well then you're in the same group as my parents, they're not on Facebook, have no reason to join Facebook and good for them. It doesn't help everyone else who feel they have to either sign up or they'll drift apart from the friends they already have.

Re:Google+

[VolciMaster]

google is worse than facebook? have you ever seen what facebook does with your data even when you delete your profile?

nice though, we love the whole "GOOGLE IS EVIL" line. keep trottin out the lies all you want.

Google worse than facebook? Doubtful. Either being better than the other? Even more improbable. Fact is, if you're posting personal information to a public or semi-public forum like facbook or Google+, it can be used however the company decides - if you don't like it, don't use it. Or follow the old adage: "if you wouldn't put it on a billboard, don't put it on a webpage".

Re:Google+

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

...don't waste time on social networks trying to find new friends while leaving behind the old real ones.

ur doin it rong.

Re:Google+

[wintercolby]

If you were concerned about your privacy, you'd search your name on several search engines once a month or so. You'd go to those sites and whittle down your privacy settings to the point that you were satisfied. Had you actually done this when you first found that you had a Google profile, then your Google+ profile wouldn't be public. I'm fine with it if all it does is share my name and my gender, publicly. I already have my privacy settings there to be that way. This is quite unlike Facebook, where I have to constantly keep an eye out for the latest feature and how they're going to assume that I want that feature turned on towards the world at large. Facebook does this even after you have every setting you can at "me only".

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel very good, have friends, work, hobbies and interest, and don't waste time on social networks trying to find new friends while leaving behind the old real ones.

Maybe your friends are just as odd as you then

Things have finally come full circle. 15 years ago I was considered "odd" because all my friends, hobbies and interests were online. Hell, I even met my current partner that way. I've since changed, am older and wiser, and no longer maintain any online presence. I live in the real world where interactions are in person and convey an infinitude of subtle information exchanges of mood and expression that could never be expressed online.

So yeah, that's now considered "odd", is it? Perhaps in another 15 years the rest of the world will catch up.

Re:Google+

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Pity that was modded down, there's a point hiding in there. Every story that even lightly touches on Facebook raises a complaint about people hate social networking and justify it by whining about how they assume others misuse it.

Given the flimsy rationale and the ... erm... Slashdottian stereotype, I'm inclined to think that the real problem is that you don't like having it rubbed in your face that somebody else has friends and a social life. Understandable, but seriously, this "I'm your superior" attitude ain't helpin.

Re:Google+

[hedwards]

Unfortunately, if you don't make a profile then you have absolutely no say in what goes on with your data. Google+ is a step in the right direction as they allow for more granularity in sharing, but really all social networking sites are a grievous threat to privacy.

Now, when folks get the message that just because their privacy doesn't matter to them that it doesn't mean that privacy is so unappreciated with the rest of us it's not going to be an issue. Ultimately, if you can't get a release signed then you shouldn't be posting information about other people online.

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

My 72 year old dad is on Facebook and so is my 99 year old grandma, just saying.

Re:Google+

[julesh]

The only mandatory information in the public profile is name and age

Thereby ensuring that a large percentage of sign ups lie about one, or both.

Particularly as if you specify your age as less than 13, they will delete your entire Google account.

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Individualism if fine, as long as we all do it together.

Re:Google+

[master_p]

They are not real friends if they forget you because you don't use Facebook.

Re:Google+

[vitaflo]

"Maybe your friends are just as odd as you then, nothing really wrong with that but the reason most of us feel the social pressure is because almost all my "old real" friends now are on Facebook. That's where they chatter and share pictures and make events and whatnot, it's not that they're purposely shutting you out but you're the special case. You're the one "being difficult", why can't you just get a profile just like everybody else?"

If they're really old friends, then why can't you just call them? Or text them? Or email them? Or stop by their house to say "hi"? There are a million different ways to stay connected, especially when it comes to long time friends but it seems everyone it too lazy to pick up a phone and have a real chat.

In some ways not being on social networks has its benefits. When you do hang out with your old buddies you actually have something interesting to talk about because you don't already know every little minute details of people's lives.

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually all that is required is name and gender, not age.

Re:Google+

[DerekLyons]

If your Google profile was private (as you would expect from those who care about privacy issues)

No, I would expect that from those that are paranoid and shrill about privacy and who confuse privacy with anonymity. I want to have privacy (I.E. not everything is available to everyone), but I don't care about anonymity (not being available/visible/traceable at all) - so my profile is public.
 
I maintain privacy by not putting things I want to be kept private in publicly available places (E.G. Live Journal, Facebook, Google+). I know, it's an old fashioned concept to be responsible for one's own self, but I'm an old fashioned kind of guy.

Re:Google+

[DerekLyons]

Social networks are just a fraud.

No. Rather it's you who are confused as to the purpose of social networks.
 

I feel very good, have friends, work, hobbies and interest, and don't waste time on social networks trying to find new friends while leaving behind the old real ones.

Social networks aren't about trying to find new friends, they're about maintaining contacts with the ones you have. Yes, you can use them to find new ones (and I've met some great ones on Live Journal and Flickr), but that's not the primary purpose thereof. There is a small demographic of Friends - The Roleplaying Game players that use social networks to garner the most points by having the most 'friends', but they're a minority way the heck off on the edge of the bell curve. (And you're way the heck off on the other side.) It's a mistake to judge the whole system by the behavior of the edge cases.

Re:Google+

[fyngyrz]

Both are marks of people who know how to use their time very well. Television is a wasteland of drivel; Facebook typically isn't much better, however it also adds privacy exposure and exclusionary concerns.

Television is probably one of two or three technologies that offered the most potential to advance our civilization; unfortunately, it never even came close to being used well, and finally devolved into primarily being used to consume fake news sources like Fox, "reality" shows, and various types of fiction. Today, owning a monitor to consume carefully selected streams and DVDs can make sense; but it is still a mark of good life management skills to avoid broadcast television and cable.

Re:Google+

[Anrego]

There is a different between them forgetting to invite you to a wedding and them forgetting to invite you to a movie.

As a non-facebook (or really any social networking) user I accept that I miss the occasional "thing". My friends will post stuff like "anyone want to go see " and I'm cool with missing out on that kinda stuff occasionally. I think it would be unfair to expect them to remember to specifically call _me_ every time they are arranging something because I'm that jerk that won't just create a facebook account. All part of the deal.

Re:Google+

[Kjella]

There is a different between them forgetting to invite you to a wedding and them forgetting to invite you to a movie. As a non-facebook (or really any social networking) user I accept that I miss the occasional "thing". My friends will post stuff like "anyone want to go see " and I'm cool with missing out on that kinda stuff occasionally. I think it would be unfair to expect them to remember to specifically call _me_ every time they are arranging something because I'm that jerk that won't just create a facebook account. All part of the deal.

That was what I was trying to say, it's not like they don't have phone or email or a kazillion other ways of getting in touch if we want. But when they're using the social network to be social then you're not part of that. And it's not the big events that make friendships, it's all the little events - the day I only get invited to a birthday party once a year we're not all that close anymore. It's chilling with some beers or playing games or going to watch a soccer match or going camping or any other of a million little "unimportant" things that together make up a friendship. Of course good friendships survive without that for some time, but not forever.

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

But at that time you will be online again, right?

Maybe you're just a contrarian? ;)

Re:Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really too dumb to notice the blatant circular logic in this?

The only reason those "old real" "friends" are now on Facebook, is because their "old real" "friends" were also now on Facebook.

But it is logically impossible for everyone on Facebook to have done it because of this. Since there must have been some people who were the first ones and didn't know anyone on there.

So that whole excuse is bullshit. Also: Have you got no spine or balls whatsoever? Why are you so damn insecure about using Facebook being the wrong choice? YOU are the expert. YOU know it BETTER. That's a FACT.
When I talk to people, and they say they use Facebook, I give them a reaction that makes THEM be ashamed, excuse themselves for letting themselves go, and say they know itâ(TM)s wrong.
So lead the pack! It's cool NOT to use Facebook! Make them feel dumb and behind the curve for using it! Because they ARE. Again, a FACT. Make them feel left out! Be the boss for once in your sorry life!

Or please just jump down the bridge "like everybody else".

Re:Google+

[DaVince21]

Who says social networks are just for "finding new friends while leaving behind the real old ones", though? I use it as another way to communicate with my actual friends and family. Everyone else is merely "some sort of contact", not a Friend, as Facebook would like you to think.

Consciously opt out?

[improfane]

I never had a Google Profile and opted out of Buzz as soon as I could.

How do I opt out of Google+?

What even was Google Profile?

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

What even was Google Profile?

It's like they're taunting you to read the article just to find out. Apparently if you put info into a Google profile and someone searched for your name, a link to the profile would appear in the search results. Presumably there must be some safeguards against abuse because that sounds quite exploitable.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[impaledsunset]

Time to stop using Google and their services altogether.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[wdsci]

Presumably you opt out of Google+ by not opting into it - just don't sign up.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[cychoi]

How do I opt out of Google+?

https://plus.google.com/u/0/downgrade/

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's certainly true while it's in beta right now, but I think his concern (and mine as well) is, what happens when Google+ goes public? Will all Google accounts automatically be converted over to + accounts, even if you don't want them to?

I'd like to see if Google has the balls to even answer that question.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, they are making it so that you are either public on Google+, or not at all. So you can just stick with not at all.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[improfane]

It really wouldn't surprise me if they made empty 'profile stubs' for everyone who hasn't joined. Perhaps with a button labelled 'Add my detail!' They really want to make inroads against Facebook. The Buzz fiasco won't stop them, they may be more cautious but they are getting desparate.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Chris Down]

With a motto that reads "don't be evil" (perhaps with an appended "unless it's profitable"), perhaps the better method is to discern what you actually want to get from having a Google account.

Considering Google's primary source of revenue is advertisement -- the dissemination of data -- it doesn't take much foresight to see that vast swathes of user data is also a valuable commodity that could become a tangible profit for them.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[geekprime]

Using your real identity anywhere on the internet for any reason is just begging for complications.

Frankly, I think it's stupid, I've never done it and I won't ever do it. hell, I don't even associate my profiles between the different websites I visit
digg dosen't need to know that i'm bob on slashdot and ralph on stumble and neither does any other site.
If I want a friend to know I tell them myself

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably there must be some safeguards

Never presume anything

Re:Consciously opt out?

[goose-incarnated]

You do that - let us know how it goes.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[youn]

You do that - let us know how it goes.

if you can still find him around... chances without google, he'll may be nowhere to be found ;)

Re:Consciously opt out?

[aaaaaaargh!]

Apart from the search engine and maps, Google has no essential services, so it's possible. However, I tried to get rid of their search engine by using duck and bing, but find myself to often switch back to google search. At least for the mostly academic search terms for papers etc. they still seem to have the best search results. I ended up by switching constantly between scroogle, google, bing, and other search engines. As for maps, I use them very rarely and for the purposes I use them (walking to conference venues) Google map printouts are very bad. I'm sure there are better maps available on the Net.

In a nutshell, abandoning Google is easy only as long as you can life with inferior search results.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

What have you got to hide, citizen?

Re:Consciously opt out?

[improfane]

This is what I do.

Buy webhosting with some company.
Set up a personal domain email address.
Use the email hosting with your personal domain.

Use IMAP to access your email and use POP to remove it from the server. This is what I do.

Keep your email on your own domain and it won't matter which email host you use.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[TheRaven64]

Works okay for me. I've not used any Google services for a while. It's not like they offer anything that is so compelling that you lose out massively by opting for one of their competitors' products.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[TheRaven64]

At least for the mostly academic search terms for papers etc. they still seem to have the best search results.

I never found Google Scholar to be as good as CiteSeer for academic work - especially since Google Scholar rarely gave enough information to cite properly and often linked to paywall sites rather than to the freely downloadable preprint that most academics put on their own sites.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[lxs]

I'm not a citizen of the nation of Greater Google, even though I'm a frequent visitor.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems so irrational an existential to me. Even with Buzz, you had to actually "buzz"something before they messed up with privacy. This is about as likely as ISPs suddenly deciding to post everyone's real name with their IP.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Urkki]

What would you suggest as a better free replacement? It doesn't even have to be free, cheap is enough, as long as it does not involve me giving them my credit card details.

This is serious question. And no, I don't want to take personal responsibility of keeping my own personal web mail service secure and up to date, so any suggestion must not include continuous administration of a server connected to the Internet.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[SniperJoe]

It really should be "don't be evil*"

* Google's definition of evil may differ from your and/or commonly held definitions of evil.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[icebraining]

What do you use? The webhosts I've used have terrible email support - low mailbox sizes, no way to enable catch-all, etc.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[TheCycoONE]

Google Maps is replaceable by Bing Maps, or openstreetmap.org I would have though you'd lose street view, but Bing Maps even has that. Whether you consider Bing or Google the lesser of two evils is up to you.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should check http://academic.research.microsoft.com/

Re:Consciously opt out?

[mla_anderson]

Using your real identity anywhere on the internet for any reason is just begging for complications.

That would depend on your name. Having a very common name is often a hassle (I had to sign an affidavit when buying the house to affirm I wasn't any of the many Michael Andersons in the state who were in major legal trouble). But as you can see I'll use it on the internet. When there are at least two of us on my block alone and pages of M. Andersons in my city's phone book and many more who aren't me that show up in a Google search then I'm not too worried.

If you do a search on Google for me I can be found if you also include the right terms, but you still have to wade through pages of search results.

I'll give you one hint if you want to try it: I'm not a dead astronaut posting from beyond the grave.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for your worthless fucking comment you troll

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically posted as AC?

Re:Consciously opt out?

[perryizgr8]

except one: google search. almost everything else has a decent alternative.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean "opt out"? If you don't have a Google Profile now, this doesn't apply to you at all.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[TheRaven64]

I've been using DuckDuckGo for about a year now. Occasionally it doesn't find anything useful and suggests I try Google. Every time I've done so, Google has given me a load of irrelevant results. I've not yet come across a search where Google gives me helpful results but DDG doesn't. It has a nicer user interface, a better privacy policy, and defaults to HTTPS, so I'm not sure why I'd want to switch back to Google for search.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[mwvdlee]

Can you opt out of Google+ without being invited to Google+?

Re:Consciously opt out?

[VolciMaster]

I've been using DuckDuckGo for about a year now. Occasionally it doesn't find anything useful and suggests I try Google. Every time I've done so, Google has given me a load of irrelevant results. I've not yet come across a search where Google gives me helpful results but DDG doesn't. It has a nicer user interface, a better privacy policy, and defaults to HTTPS, so I'm not sure why I'd want to switch back to Google for search.

Same here - it's my default on every firefox install (takes a moment to setup, but it's worth it). I'm still using Chrome for some stuff, but have been having performance issues with it a lot recently, and am about ready to throw-in the towel on it.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[VolciMaster]

What do you use? The webhosts I've used have terrible email support - low mailbox sizes, no way to enable catch-all, etc.

Since he suggested setting up your own server, my *guess* is that he has as much space (more or less) as he wants. I do. I use a VPS and could, theoretically, have 50GB of email. I use that server for several other things as well, but that doesn't mean I'm really "limited" in how much I can store.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[VolciMaster]

What would you suggest as a better free replacement? It doesn't even have to be free, cheap is enough, as long as it does not involve me giving them my credit card details.

This is serious question. And no, I don't want to take personal responsibility of keeping my own personal web mail service secure and up to date, so any suggestion must not include continuous administration of a server connected to the Internet.

Yahoo's webmail, imo, has a better interface.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Quince alPillan]

Oops... you need a Google profile to use this feature.

Google Profiles is not available for your organization.

Noooooooo! *head asplodes*

Re:Consciously opt out?

[John Hasler]

You can use Google Search without having any sort of Google "account", accepting their cookies or permitting their JS.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[LordLimecat]

Want to opt out? Well, then I guess you can live in the hinterlands and die young!

Re:Consciously opt out?

[John Hasler]

> What do you use?

I use Newsguy. I have no experience with their Webmail though, and you might find their mailboxes too small (I download my mail every ten minutes so that doesn't matter to me).

Re:Consciously opt out?

[blueg3]

You don't opt out of Google+, currently, you have to opt in to it.

I don't see what the big deal is. I don't recall private Google Profiles actually doing much of anything at all. If you can delete it, apparently there's no problem having no Google Profile at all. So, if you have a private Profile before, couldn't you just have none now?

Re:Consciously opt out?

[blueg3]

Incidentally, once you have a Google service, you can almost always use the Dashboard to delete that service and the data in it.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[improfane]

Something that is public for even a short duration can no longer be regarded private in the future.

I know what you mean but I don't want anything leaked out accidentally. It annoys me that Google Contacts adds people I've emailed to my contact list.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[blueg3]

Sure. I was just commenting on Google's opt-out system. I think they've auto-added services in the past, but for the majority of them, you have to click through an approval before it exists. So technically I suppose it's strictly opt-in. As far as I know, Google+ is currently solely opt-in.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Bengie]

I just tried DuckDuckGo , it brought back nearly the same results as Google, except Google did a hell of a lot better bringing the more relevant results to the top.

I'm guessing it's because Google tracks me that I get better results. If I use Chrome in anonymous mode, my Google results are much closer to DuckDuckGo's results, close enough to be the same for me. But since DuckDuckGo doesn't track me, it will NEVER have better results than Google for me, assuming they bring back the same things every time.

That was my short experience with a few test cases. Mileage my vary.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just your name and gender. Grow the fuck up already.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

this links to a sign-up page... no details about opting out...

Re:Consciously opt out?

[John Hasler]

They couldn't do that if you didn't have a Google contact list.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[tero]

By far the easiest way is to become a paying Google customer.

You'd think they'd offer these things to their paying(/loyal) customers first, but we never got Buzz, +1 and now we can't access Google+ either.

So everyone else gets to opt-in, but if you let Google to host your stuff, you're automatically opted out.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[camperdave]

TANSTAAFL, comrade. Or in this case, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Email Service. You either pay for it with money, or you pay for it with spam and ads.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[icebraining]

Uh, no, he recommended buying your own domain and some webhosting, not setting up a server.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[hedwards]

Unless you're looking for academic papers, the results are hardly better than the competition. I see folks saying that google search is better, but having stopped using it several months back I don't miss it at all. Given how poor Google does at certain types of searches due to the methods they used to be fast it can be a really hassle trying to find information about error messages that affect particular versions of a program. And you end up with matching every single thing that is either the product or has the string of numbers. And putting it in quotes doesn't help you as often times the result that fixes the problem is for a subtly different version or omits the version altogether.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[DragonWriter]

How do I opt out of Google+?

By not opting in. Neither Google+ nor Google Profiles are default for most google services (Buzz requires a profile, and Google+ obviously does.)

Google is just deleting all private profiles when this goes into effect. Its not forcing people to acquire public ones.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[vegiVamp]

Requires you to be logged in, ironically.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[EvilStein]

This is what so many geeks USED to do, until somehow gmail came along and it was "l33t" because you had to have an invite. Remember that? Google does a fantastic job of creating an artificial buzz around products. They have done it again with Google+ too.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[EvilStein]

"no way to enable catch-all, etc."

Good. No decent host would let you ever use a catch-all these days. All a catch-all email address allows nowadays is spam spam and more spam. My personal mail server rejected just over 10,000 emails yesterday alone. All addressed to (randomcrap)@(mydomain.tld) ... if I had a catch all, I would have received over 10,000 spam/virus/shit emails. Now multiply that by oodles of customers with many other email addresses, and you're catching *millions* of complete shit emails every day.

catch-all = shitpool.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[improfane]

How do you become a paying customer?

Re:Consciously opt out?

[ArtDent]

Time to stop using Google and their services altogether.

And Google is helping you get started by deleting your private profile.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[idontgno]

While that sounds rather Facebook-ish, it's contraindicated by how Google's handling profiles now. If you have a private profile, they're not throwing it open to the public, they're deleting it. It would be spectacularly back-door to then, at a later date, surreptitiously create a public profile for you, even though you didn't opt in by not voluntarily creating your own public profile.

In other words, the approach you're suggesting is much too "evil mastermind with the excessively slow dipping machine" for the normal stupid arrogant evil done by most web media corps. Google's history hasn't been much of slow stepwise refinement of evil (like others... I'm looking at you, Zuckerberg...), but usually instead single blunders of evil followed by panicked backpedaling when the shitstorm hits.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Bengie]

It wasn't awesome because it was invite only, it was awesome because it was and still is much better than anything else out there.

My wife is semi-tech-savvy, she's been using Yahoo and Hotmail for years now. She was constantly annoyed by their interfaces. I asked her just to try gmail for a bit. After several month of being annoyed with Yahoo/Hotmail, she asked me to set up a gmail account for her.

She hasn't looked back, and I never help her with anything on it.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[CCarrot]

It annoys me that Google Contacts adds people I've emailed to my contact list.

Same here. It must have pissed enough people off, however, because they added an option to their mail settings to disable this behavior.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[fast turtle]

What's this Citizen Garbage? My green card specifically states I'm not one of yours.

Now where's that aid package you promised me for visiting?

Re:Consciously opt out?

[icebraining]

Being a bad decision is not a reason to limit options to the user. There's a reason why I don't buy restricted iOS crap.

Besides, I use a catch-all in Google Apps and I have received exactly 0 spam for random addresses - the only thing similar was (domain)@(domain), which isn't exactly random.
And if I start getting spam, I can just disable it, it's not like it's set in stone.

I like using a catch-all because that way I can give a different email to each website and if I start getting spam to one of them, 1) I'll know exactly who's the culprit and 2) it'll be easier to block.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clicking on that link redirects to this page on how to Join. Please re-mod parent as Funny.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/up/start/?continue=https://plus.google.com/u/0/downgrade/&type=st&gpcaz=a1802456

Re:Consciously opt out?

[DaVince21]

You don't opt out of Google+. You have to opt in to use it.

Re:Consciously opt out?

[DaVince21]

You do realize that this is opt-in only, right? You don't like it, just don't use it. It's not like you're automatically registered on G+ or whatever.

Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Sitting day and night spamming Slashdot and no one is falling for the garbage you spew.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know, he's kinda right. When I had to create a google acc to use youtube, I had the same idea about Google back then. They will identify me with my modem only a few years later... I dont like this connected account things on the net. Personally.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hylandr]

As a parent trying to guard the safety of my children online, I can't allow them to have these accounts, for the exact reason cgeys points out. It's sad, because here's this wonderful tool, that I have to treat like a gun in the house.

- Dan.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Read their privacy statement, because you sound like an idiot, they dont keep ip addresses for years on end. You alos dont have a profile just from having a Youtube account. It's sad how many idiot slashdotters fall for this MS/Facebook Privacy FUD. http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/12/facebook-admits-hiring-pr-firm-to-smear-google/

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's a problem for you, here's a tip: DON'T USE YOUR REAL DATA.

People could not care less if your children are named Mr. and Ms. Herp Derp.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

I agree.

My wife and I are about to have our first child and I've had to ask my friends and family not to post pictures of it on facebook. I want my child to have the choice to develop their own online identity and not have to worry that some day when they go to find employment some HR jackass isn't going to google them and use what other people have posted against them.

The responses I get when asking people not to post pictures of my kid online are ridiculous. Everything from "Oh, you're just paranoid" to "Well, I'm going to anyway.". It's pretty sad when a parent can't make a decision to protect their own child without their own parents giving them a hard time.

The other issue is that when kids are young they don't think/realize that when they post pictures of them and their friends drinking under age, smoking pot or other illegal activities it's out there and anyone can find it. All it takes is for them to just be caught/tagged in a picture with others doing it and they're up the creek.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[AliasMarlowe]

I dont know, he's kinda right.

But mostly wrong; it's a classic troll which successfully got modded up. See, for example this post for a quick explanation of why it's wrong. Or you could just check your account settings which include the option "no public profile".

When I had to create a google acc to use youtube, I had the same idea about Google back then. They will identify me with my modem only a few years later... I dont like this connected account things on the net. Personally.

Google's privacy statement says you can access and control (even delete) any detail you don't want them to have, except stuff they are legally required to retain. However, I do agree on the dislike for connectedness of personal data. One solution is DON'T SIGN UP! Another solution is to use fake data (as in my several abandoned Facebook accounts).

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hylandr]

You're spot on, but for a different reason. HR isn't going to care about baby years, but Hospitals have security measures because they are great places to find and steal babies.

Most all recent smart phones and some newer digital cameras will store coordinates in in the jpeg exif data ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotagging )

You can post edited photos with the exif data removed, but I would check your own facebook pages for information that might link to you to a specific region within a big city. Examples would be liking a local establishment like a bagel shop or pub or library. Any singular public place. Check the facebook pages of friends and family, do they mention street names or names of schools or school team names? Scouts? Church? how about that resume you might have online? I bet it has your phone number and address right on it.

Just because one might be paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. When people roll their eyes at you, tell them only the paranoid survive. What if you *didn't* take every conceivable precaution and something *did* happen? How would you feel then?

- Dan.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

My name is Mr. Herp Derp, you insensitive clod!

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you are paranoid. I can't wait until the NSA lets their identifying software out. It works without using facial recognition. The big gambling industry has been trying to get it from them with no luck.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[xaxa]

Strange coincidence: a talkative colleague on the other side of the office just said to someone "no, the first time I got drunk I was 18". The people around him said "what, really?!" (and 18 is the legal purchase age for alcohol here).

Why should an employer care? Everyone (else) drank before they were 18, no one seems to be any better or worse at their jobs because of it.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[perryizgr8]

The other issue is that when kids are young they don't think/realize that when they post pictures of them and their friends drinking under age, smoking pot or other illegal activities it's out there and anyone can find it. All it takes is for them to just be caught/tagged in a picture with others doing it and they're up the creek.

if your kids are doing illegal activities, they deserve to get caught. how can you defend a kid smoking pot? i'll be happy if google runs their image analysis on every photo posted and automatically reports it to the police if it sees someone smoking illegal drugs, or drinking underage, along with gps info so cops can teach them a lesson.
seriously, however cool it is to do drugs, it is still very harmful to you. and we should be trying to prevent kids from falling into the vicious cycle of drugs>poverty>prostitution>drugs and so on.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

I can think of a number of situation where an employer might care. Becoming a Police officer or teacher to name a couple.

Would you want someone openly vocal about how they broke the law when they were younger teaching your kids?

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

is causes extra brain damage in teens. explains a lot about society. or maybe that's just society in wisconsin with or epidemic of binge drinking...

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Tsingi]

What if you *didn't* take every conceivable precaution and something *did* happen? How would you feel then?

- Dan.

I don't know, alive?

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Moryath]

And when they start collating everything you do by IP address collision? IPv6 or MAC address?

Things you did as Mr. Herp Derp suddenly pop up on your profile for all to see anyways?

The days of "Don't Be Evil" are long gone. Google are fucking evil.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[DJRumpy]

You realize that Google's privacy policy doesn't mean shit when a persons profile is public for any length of time. All it takes is a scrape from an unscrupulous host to collect the data to sell to the highest bidder. this is a bad move for privacy and personal choice. I know /. loves all things Google, but this is just a bad idea and it's being done for strictly monetary results to Google's bottom line.

Scraping of social sites already happens with the data going to the highest bidder. It's happened on Facebook for those that didn't know how to hide their data. Google plans to remove the choice entirely.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

I don't take such a hard line. You're right drugs are bad and should be eliminated. Although, I don't think everyone deserves to be reported to the police for one stupid mistake. That's something a parent should be left to deal with initially and escalated to police if the parent is ineffective.

I know plenty of good people that did drugs and drank under age that went on to do good things. Had they been caught and charged in their earlier years they probably wouldn't have had a chance to do anything else.

For example there are several presidents (Obama, Bush and Clinton to name a few recent ones) that admitted to doing drugs. Would they have become president if they had been caught earlier? I have my doubts.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[adamofgreyskull]

Hear hear. I would never hire someone if my googling uncovered pictures of them dribbling mushy apple rice pudding down their chin or, even worse, rolling over onto their belly and trying to crawl. Honestly, I agree with you up to a point, but the time to worry about that sort of thing is not now, when your child isn't even out of the womb. Secondly, your friends and family are the least of your worries. Or do you have a crazy Uncle Bill who'll be smoking pot with your impending son or daughter at their 1st birthday party?

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

I think what he meant by

What if you *didn't* take every conceivable precaution and something *did* happen?

was, what if the kid was kidnapped from school, or the hospital because a friend or family member carelessly posted a Geotagged image on facebook. I know kids were abducted before facebook, but telling the world where and when your kid is alone is asking for trouble.

The worst part is you might not even know someone is posting pictures of your kid online and who knows who's getting access.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Tsingi]

I think what he meant by

What if you *didn't* take every conceivable precaution and something *did* happen?

I know what he meant.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off the internet and go the FUCK TO SLEEP, Herpie. I am not telling you again. Do not make me get your mother.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Nephilium]

if your kids are doing illegal activities, they deserve to get caught. how can you defend a kid smoking pot? i'll be happy if google runs their image analysis on every photo posted and automatically reports it to the police if it sees someone smoking illegal drugs, or drinking underage, along with gps info so cops can teach them a lesson. seriously, however cool it is to do drugs, it is still very harmful to you. and we should be trying to prevent kids from falling into the vicious cycle of drugs>poverty>prostitution>drugs and so on.

Right! Drugs ruins lives... just ask Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bloomberg, etc...Look how they've fallen into poverty. I can't speak to their use of prostitutes.

The most dangerous thing about most drugs is what will happen to you if you're arrested with them. Fucking drug warrior morons who believe that drugs are illegal because they're dangerous, and they're dangerous because they're illegal.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

I was using the HR thing as an example and maybe it's not an issue in the immediate future, but someday it will be. I just want my kid to be the one who decides what Googling them will find.

My wife has a series of photo albums where her mother took pictures of her as she was growing up. There are plenty of pictures of her naked as a baby, toddler. Maybe those aren't so bad, but there's one picture when she was about seven and had the chicken pox really bad that her mother took several full frontal nude photo of her and put it in the album. I'm sure nether of our parents would think twice about posting those kinds for photos online because they don't understand those photos they share with family may be seen by someone who's not family. Now a days you might even end up in jail for possession of child porn for photos like those. I tried to explain it to my Mom, after she had posted and tag photos of me growing up in all kinds of situations that I'm sure a pedophile would love to get their hands on. I also tried to explain the difference between a private album in your house and one on the internet. I was told all parents take pictures of their kids like that and I was being paranoid. I told her not to call me to bail her out.

I don't have an uncle Bill, but I do have a crazy younger brother who thinks it's cool to take photos of him and his friends smoking up and post them online. He may not try to get them to smoke up before they're teens, but I wouldn't put it past him to try later on.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hylandr]

I think what he meant by

What if you *didn't* take every conceivable precaution and something *did* happen?

was, what if the kid was kidnapped from school, or the hospital because a friend or family member carelessly posted a Geotagged image on facebook. I know kids were abducted before facebook, but telling the world where and when your kid is alone is asking for trouble.

The worst part is you might not even know someone is posting pictures of your kid online and who knows who's getting access.

Precisely. Like say, your tween's friends also on Facebook, parents, grandparents etc. If they do it, and they won't edit the comment, I un-friend them. Sounds harsh, but if someone I know can't be courteous with my private data then they don't have to be linked to me.

- Dan.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

Problem is they're careless with your private data weather you know it or not. I'd rather get a notification saying I've been tagged and tear a strip off someone rather then just not knowing what they're doing at all.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Would you want someone openly vocal about how they broke the law when they were younger teaching your kids?

Yes because the alternative is a hypocrite and I don't want those anywhere near my kids. Unless their crime was diddling kids I don't care.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Because your little snowflakes are so special someone's going to stalk you on online, go sleuthing until they track you down and then create an elaborate scheme to kidnap them ? Unless your last name is Rockefeller or Hilton, I doubt that scenario is plausible. Criminals are lazy buggers and opportunists, they'll just grab a kid off the street.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

I just think eventually kids will figure out how to break the law on their own. They don't need people in positions of trust telling them they did it and got away with it. Who knows, my kid's not born yet, they might be an idiot like my bother who takes pictures of himself breaking the law and posts them on his facebook page. Some day when my kids are old enough and we're sitting down with a beer talking about the stupid things we did when we were younger I'll tell them what I did in college. Till then they just don't need to know so I'm not going to advertise it.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hylandr]

Good Point.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hylandr]

People aren't snowflakes, and that's why it's entirely probable. Who's to say that snatching off the street wasn't the result of research? You can't prove it wasn't.

- Dan.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Runaway1956]

Alright - I have trouble with collectivism in general. I'm a private person, and I do NOT believe that everything I do should be public. I've written a lot of things, drawing parallels between today's reality, and Orwelle's 1984. I do NOT like the idea of a New World Order, a One World Government, or government censorship, or a lot of other things that we see the world's leadership working toward.

All the same - I can't paint Google as "evil". Or, if there is evil there, it's far more diluted than a number of other equally powerful megacorporations.

Evil. Maybe when you and people like you say that "Google are fucking evil", then you should define what you mean by "evil".

Putting things in perspective, do you think Google is as evil as a huge media megacorporation that employs people to hack into private phone lines, targeting politicians, celebs, murdered and/or missing people? Or, do you think that Google is as evil as a governmental intelligence agency(s) which redefines a whole class of prisoners, so as to deny those prisoners any judicial rights? Or, are they as evil as some tinpot dictator in Africa or Asia, who just executes people who disagree with him?

Evil. If corporations are evil, and Murdoch's empire were to rate a 10 on the evil scale, then I'd have to put Google somewhere around .1 to .5.

But, that's just my opinion.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Runaway1956]

Because your little snowflakes are so special someone's going to stalk you on online, go sleuthing until they track you down and then create an elaborate scheme to kidnap them ? Unless your last name is Rockefeller or Hilton, I doubt that scenario is plausible. Criminals are lazy buggers and opportunists, they'll just grab a kid off the street.

The scenario you paint isn't all that farfetched. Look through the news of missing, abducted, murdered, and raped children over the past few years. SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, took notice of that child for SOME REASON.

Why put up a reason for them to notice your kids?

Let's just suppose, some freak who was released from Texas state prison last year happens to live only 20 miles or less from me. I don't know he's there. Even if he happens to be a registered sex offender, I may or may not know that he's there. I post my grand daughter's pic on line, he happens to see it, and the child's appearance just happens to appeal to him. He can see that the child lives close to him - less than a half hour drive. Why WOULDN'T he start stalking my family and I, waiting for an opportunity to steal what appeals to him?

Of course someone from Maine, or Washington, or even London is unlikely to think about stalking my children. But, there really are predators living close to me - and to you!

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Runaway1956]

Actually - I had a teacher in high school who was very vocal about the laws he broke as a young man. And, he had several scars to show us the penalty for some of the stupid shit he did. It was like, "Look, at this, look what stupidity did to me! Are you stupid? Then don't do as I did, because it was STUPID!!"

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[CharlyFoxtrot]

People aren't snowflakes, and that's why it's entirely probable. Who's to say that snatching off the street wasn't the result of research? You can't prove it wasn't.

- Dan.

You really are paranoid. (paraoia: suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification)

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Runaway1956]

FFS, I did a lot of things, as a kid, that could have landed me in trouble. Like shooting a duck, out of season, for my dinner. Yep, I shot him, and ate him. Because I'm color blind, I couldn't identify that duck precisely. I saved a few feathers though, because I thought they'd make nice fishing flies. Some old timer saw those feathers, and came half unglued. "You didn't kill that duck, did you? They are protected!" "Oh, no sir! I found these feathers down by the creek!"

And, that wasn't the very worst of what I got up to as a kid, either. I figure, kids will be kids, and whatever they may have done as a pre-teen, or even in their early teens should be forgotten. Later teens - well - that pretty much depends on how serious their "offenses" were. Private party with alcohol, no one's life at risk? No one's business. Drinking and driving, with a fatality as a result? Different story - people have the right to know.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hylandr]

About 260,000 children are abducted every year in the United States of America. Of these child abduction only about 115 result in very serious consequences, like injury or death.

http://www.ygoy.com/index.php/child-abduction-statistics/

We had a child taken, fortunately we got her back right fast without harm.

>> Fuck - - Off.

- Dan.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you're an idiot. I can't wait until the OSP leaks their super duper mind reading software that works without wires or being hooked up to anything. The pharmaceutical industry has been trying to get it from them with no luck.

See how stupid your comment is?

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[alexo]

Sorry, friend, out of mod points at the moment. Please accept a thumbs up instead.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Toonol]

Exactly. There's rational caution, and there's harmful overreaction. When your baby is murdered or kidnapped, it'll most likely be a member of the family. How many kidnappings has facebook contributed to? What percentage of total crimes is that?

Miniscule. Be careful about facebook because it may cause relationship problems, or harm employment opportunities... but it's safer than letting your kid play on your front lawn.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Dishevel]

People aren't snowflakes, and that's why it's entirely probable. Who's to say that snatching off the street wasn't the result of research? You can't prove it wasn't.

- Dan.

I am so sorry. But really. There is no real hope left for you.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[yoshi_mon]

Evil. If corporations are evil, and Murdoch's empire were to rate a 10 on the evil scale, then I'd have to put Google somewhere around .1 to .5.

As evil as Murdoch's empire is I think that unless we give bonus points to Exxon, BP, and all the subsidary corps that form the current oil cartels that his empire would have to take 2nd place to them.

After watching non-stop lies about the latest oil spill I can't see how they are not the current 10 standard for corporate evil.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

How are people able to get close enough to your child to get pictures? You let them onto your property and into your compound?

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[ceoyoyo]

"Just because one might be paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

No, you're paranoid. A child is FAR more likely to be kidnapped by a family member than a stranger. And if a stranger does want to kidnap a child, there isn't any shortage of them. He or she doesn't need to go looking at GPS coordinates in family photos.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[CharlyFoxtrot]

It can happen, it probably has happened somewhere, it's just extremely unlikely. Probably on the order of getting stuck by lightning and not worth risking your sanity by fretting over it. I'm as afraid for my kids as the next guy but you can't let those fears become irrational and paralyze you.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd really written on 1984 you'd know the correct spelling of the author's name.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hylandr]

Meant to post "Good Point" Up here.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[CharlyFoxtrot]

About 260,000 children are abducted every year in the United States of America. Of these child abduction only about 115 result in very serious consequences, like injury or death.

So how many of those were abducted after online stalking ? You're obviously not much bothered by this yourself since there's personal information and pictures all over your blog (liked from your profile page) and I read you're posting pictures of the kids to Facebook as well.

We had a child taken, fortunately we got her back right fast without harm.

That's rough, glad everything worked out OK.

>> Fuck - - Off.

You've got a quick temper for someone who's "a good shot with a vareity (sic) of firearms."

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Dishevel]

Agree 100%.
Also in keeping with the safety protocol here...
No photos of your children at all. Viruses and such on computers could lead to pic being seen online. (Children seen = Higher Chance of Abduction)
Private school. Hopefully one that has high walls and armed security. Very private with who goes there. (Children seen = Higher Chance of Abduction)
No outside activities. (Children seen = Higher Chance of Abduction)
No friends. Friends could take photos or mention the name of your children ton unapproved people. (Children seen = Higher Chance of Abduction)
This one is important. Never remove you attention from your child for on second.
They could expose themselves to unapproved people, or in general do something dangerous. (Crossing streets, Eating Food, Not looking where they are going)

Death is just around the corner for every child.
Protect them at all costs. Even if it means they never get to really live.

 

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Runaway1956]

I get it right, sometimes. I even spell my own name wrong sometimes. The idea got across, didn't it? You understood that I believe a lot of our laws are Orwellian, right?

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

Hypothetical scenario.

Say my cousin posts all kinds of pictures of his kid on Facebook and I don't post any of mine. Also say one of our common family members is a pedophile, we don't know they are. Do you think they'd be more likely to take my kid they rarely see or my cousin's that they get daily "look how cute my kid is in the bath" updates for?

I just don't see any reason to make it easier for someone to covet my kid.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[the_hellspawn]

my balls hurt

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hatta]

how can you defend a kid smoking pot?

How can you defend sending a kit to jail for smoking pot? He's not hurting anyone but himself (if that!). Sending him to jail hurts him a lot more than pot. What sense does that make?

seriously, however cool it is to do drugs, it is still very harmful to you. and we should be trying to prevent kids from falling into the vicious cycle of drugs>poverty>prostitution>drugs and so on.

True, everyone who uses drugs ends up whoring themselves out. For instance, our last three presidents were all admitted drug users. We can't let that happen to our kids!

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I think the hypothetical pedo will take advantage of the child he has access to be it yours, your cousin's or some other unfortunate. This argument is akin to telling women they shouldn't wear skirts because it could "provoke" men.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[cheekyjohnson]

Not everyone believes that being "paranoid" is a bad thing. I usually take measures to prevent something if it's easy (if it is so easy, why not?).

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

I'm sure you're being sarcastic.

There are risks in life and you can't possibly protect your child from everything. However, within reason shouldn't you at least try to protect them from somethings?

Maybe teaching your kid how to identify what kind of wild mushrooms are safe to eat is better then not letting them out in the woods at all. There's also a big difference between having physical photos of your kids in a baby book and posting them all of the internet for everyone to see. The line between being super-overprotective-parent-from-hell and completely negligent isn't razor thing, but finding a good balance where you kid can actually have a life verses being locked in a padded room isn't straight forward.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hylandr]

*Grin*

Read my guidelines again and see if you can pin down an address or as small a general area as you can and message me from my website. I would love a security audit about now. * Braces himself*

- Dan.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[cheekyjohnson]

There's rational caution, and there's harmful overreaction.

"Rational" depending on who you ask. If you are able to take steps against something (even if there is a miniscule chance of it happening), and it is easy to do, why not do it?

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Hylandr]

*Grin*

Read my guidelines again and see if you can pin down an address or as small a general area as you can and message me from my website. I would love a security audit about now. * Braces himself*

- Dan.
--
- Since When did being a good citizen in America mean making yourself a good victim?

( Reposted - Slashdot is pissing me off today too :))

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

You watch too many movies. As time goes on and you get used to having kid(s), you'll change. You can create the invisible shell around your child and protect her/him from the outside world and present a picture to them that the world is all flowers and happy people, no one ever fails, there are no losers, and their are no disappointments or bad things in life, and that their surroundings are controllable and predictable. That concept works great when they are young because they are with you and in your direct control all of the time. When they get older and start hanging out with friends and doing things away from your immediate control, the shell starts getting pierced. Children that had a hard shell can have a difficult time adapting to reality when mommy and daddy arent their to manage their experience. Kids call each other names, fight, do mean things to each other. Do you really think the world has more bullies now then 50 years ago? No, kids don't know how to handle the bullies because of the shell they had, they also have a hard times when their "friends" talk about them behind their backs. In the process of trying to raise your kid in the perfect environment and raise their self esteem, the plan backfires and for many kids, it explodes. I say bring back dodgeball and only give trophies to the winners. Kids will learn that they can and do fail and how to deal with it and learn from it.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

This argument is akin to telling women they shouldn't wear skirts because it could "provoke" men

No it's not at all. I'm not telling women the shouldn't wear skirts. Just like I'm not telling my cousin not to post pictures of his child. To each their own.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Read their privacy statement, because you sound like an idiot, they dont keep ip addresses for years on end.

They might as well.

Google "scrubs" the last octet of the IP address after 9 months and erases cookie tracking information after 18 months. So 172.16.20.5 becomes 172.16.20.XXX, but it is trivial to cross-reference the "scrubbed" ip address with other info like cookies and frequently used websites to uniquely identify a user in google's records indefinitely.

You alos dont have a profile just from having a Youtube account.

This appears to be true but google has done an absolutely piss-poor job of communicating that. They have such a gigantic set of ever changing "products" that you can't blame a casual user for having no freaking clue what a "google profile" and given the name, it sure sounds like it could be just another name for a centralised google account, like what they forced all youtube users to convert to a couple of months ago.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[bware]

You're spot on, but for a different reason. HR isn't going to care about baby years, but Hospitals have security measures because they are great places to find and steal babies.

This has got to be extremely rare. My guess is similar to the odds of getting struck by lightning.

And a 30 second google turns up that in 1983, 101 babies were stolen and 94 of them recovered, out of 4 million babies born (old and new statistics, but I don't imagine they're off by more than a factor of two).

So the odds of your baby being stolen and unrecovered are about the same as being struck by lightning in any given year (1 in a million), and the odds of your baby being stolen at all are about the same as your lifetime risk of getting struck by lightning (1 in ten thousand). While the infant mortality rate is about 7 per thousand, or 70 times higher.

I'm not saying don't worry, but maybe worry appropriate to relative risks.

*all statistics US.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[The Archon V2.0]

You're spot on, but for a different reason. HR isn't going to care about baby years, but Hospitals have security measures because they are great places to find and steal babies.

Really? How common is hospital baby theft? It's not like they're hard to make. You wouldn't happen to have stats at hand about how often these security measures are used in a year?

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

It's amazing how me saying I don't want pictures of my child posted on facebook has turned into I'm going to lock my child in a room until they die. When they're old enough to make the decision themselves knowing the potential risks they can do what they want. While I'm the one that has to make the decision for them it'll be done my way.

This is almost as bad as the time I got in a discussion with a friend at the mall about spanking. While I welcome the opinions and comments of others, and I certainly take them in to consideration. When someone turns a minor thing spanking into ripping a branch off a tree and bludgeoning your child to death with it, it's hard to not think that person is a complete loon and the source of all the problems with society. And yes we did have a women come over and start screaming at us because I said I wasn't opposed to the idea in some cases. Mean while her screaming kid was throwing his lunch across the food court.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[The Archon V2.0]

Look through the news of missing, abducted, murdered, and raped children over the past few years. SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, took notice of that child for SOME REASON.

Yeah. Usually because they're related to or otherwise know the child in person. My memory's a bit fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure abduction by strangers accounts for less than a quarter of all abductions. There's way better odds in hiding a kid from family and friends than from strangers. Except that would be abduction, wouldn't it?

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Vanderhoth]

/. pisses me off every day. That's why it's so fun to read.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[Scarletdown]

Google are fucking evil.

Well, Google tried fucking Good, but Good only wanted to do it missionary position with the lights out and no foreplay or any other fun little bedroom games. Boooooooriiiiinnnnng.

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[geminidomino]

For instance, our last three presidents were all admitted drug users

Probably not the best subset to use as a counterexample to the assertion that drugs lead to prostitution.

Just sayin'

Re:Poor Liddle Microsoft Troll

[perryizgr8]

True, everyone who uses drugs ends up whoring themselves out. For instance, our last three presidents were all admitted drug users. We can't let that happen to our kids!

clinton- had sex in the white house and lied about it.
bush- started meaningless wars and brought on the global economic recession.
obama- is adamant on shutting down nasa and all other scientific endeavors.

yeah, drug users are great people!

Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does Google force people to be truthful about themselves while they filter and censor search results as they (or other big companies) see fit. There should be another search engine that doesn't do that by now anyway.

Re:Privacy

[ImaLamer]

they filter and censor search results as they (or other big companies) see fit

Please elaborate on this...

Because I think even the CEO couldn't get Google to remove results.

Departing Google CEO Eric Schmidt was known for some of his bumbling public statements -- like saying that privacy didn't matter -- but apparently he made some internal blunders as well.

One of the biggest: asking Google's search team to remove information about a political donation from its search results.
According to a new book about Google by Steven Levy, Schmidt's request was shot down by Google exec Sheryl Sandberg, who is now COO of Facebook. The book was reviewed this morning by the New York Times, which got an advance copy.

The fact he would make such a request at all is pretty amazing -- especially since Google's lawyers have said that the company never promotes or eliminates particular sites from search results, even when trying to fight spam. Earlier this month, Google engineer Matt Cutts contradicted this stance, basically admitting that Google can use "whitelists" to exclude certain sites from changes to the algorithm.

But hey, it is their search engine and all.

Re:Privacy

[MurukeshM]

Who said anything about truth? You don't even have to use your own name. What Google is doing here is this:
a) Way before Google+, Google allowed you to create a Profile, and mark it as Public or Private.
b) Private profiles couldn't be seen, and didn't show up in search results. (I had one.)
c) It was as if the Private profiles didn't exist at all, except to their owners.
d) Google sees this as a waste, and decides to delete this waste of space. Unless, of course, you chose to use the profile and make it visible to others.
I don't see what this has to do with Privacy. Google is deleting the private profiles, not making them public. If you want to Google-bash, I saw an article about bugs in Google+ somewhere today. Do use that. :)

Re:Privacy

[countertrolling]

>> they filter and censor search results as they (or other big companies) see fit...

Please elaborate on this...

Search for the name of the maid in the DSK rape case.. The CIA doesn't have this kind of security

Re:Privacy

[perryizgr8]

google stood up to the chinese government, and left the chinese market rather than censor their search results.

Re:Privacy

[jigamo]

Great explanation. Additionally, a public profile gives you the option to choose whether your profile is indexed by search engines (Google intuitively calls the option "search visibility"). If you're concerned about people finding your profile when they search for you, this is a great option that allows sharing your profile only with people who have the URL.

Re:Privacy

[GrumpySteen]

Guess again.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/how-google-accidentally-helped-expose-dsk-accuser/39691/

"her identity has been well shielded by most American media so far"

The reason you can't find her name easily is because the media has been trying to keep her name out of the stories. Google hasn't been censoring anything, however, so you can use Google to find her identity if you're inclined to do so.

Webmail alternative?

[Lazy Jones]

somewhat OT, but can anyone recommend a good webmail provider whose business is not selling and analyzing our private communication, but providing a good webmail client? I don't mind paying, my privacy is worth it.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

somewhat OT, but can anyone recommend a good webmail provider whose business is not selling and analyzing our private communication, but providing a good webmail client? I don't mind paying, my privacy is worth it.

Google does not sell information and only lets programs(never people) analyse your messages (acc to Google's p.p. )

i believe the advertising analyzes is disabled on non-free corp accounts

and btw any anti spam filter analyzes your messages and any mail provider can read your mail

if you want privacy, then build your own (fire-)wall and setup a mail server behind this.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[nzac]

I assume your ISP will have email accounts included in the cost and i have yet to find one without web mail access.

If you pay enough you can even get your own domain name from a lot of places i expect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_webmail_providers

You don’t need ads when you are getting five dollars or even a lot less a month for doing practically nothing.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

please try www.me.com if you like. at least the privacy is still intact though I would not be biased on the features that you wish vs what are provided.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[IAmGarethAdams]

"My privacy is *very* important to me. Who wants to look after my email?"

Re:Webmail alternative?

[ledow]

Buy your own domain and server. It's dirt-cheap nowadays and you can use it for lots of other things too.

Seriously, if you don't want other people able to read your emails without your knowledge the only way is to run your own domain and MX server (however even that is subject to the terms of your agreement with your upstream provider and host - probably only co-lo's would give you a guarantee that they're not just browsing through your server's disks, but you can't practically "force" SMTP encryption for people trying to deliver mail to you).

VPS are dirt-cheap nowadays and can be stupidly easy to setup and have things like SquirrelMail running. Securing them is pretty easy (block all access to webmail/pop3/imap except from your personal static IP address, or even a local address and then VPN in to do those things, and leave only the SMTP ports open to the world).

Email is an inherently insecure, readable, open format. If you want guarantees about who's storing / reading / analysing that data, you want to cut out as many middle-men as possible. Or you could just get a life and not plug in real information into your Google profile...

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

analyzed -> advert shown -> action -> people have actual data that you were shown the advert and that you bought something via a link that came from the advert. who do you think codes programs if not people? google analytics is the biggest slowdown of the web in 2011 by the way - and if google doesn't get a clue soon they'll start having an exodus out of their stuff. I'd much much rather have blanket sponsors on things like email(think a big coca-cola banner thats shown to everyone on the service, not analyzing first if the user likes coke or pepsi and then showing the banner they "want").

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

somewhat OT, but can anyone recommend a good webmail provider whose business is not selling and analyzing our private communication, but providing a good webmail client? I don't mind paying, my privacy is worth it.

Yourself.

I'm sure there are some good small companies providing just that service and perhaps people can name a few. Unfortunately, as they grow they tend to look for more revenue streams and return on investment. With all the best intentions in the world you slowly get turned into a product.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

VPS are dirt-cheap nowadays and can be stupidly easy to setup and have things like SquirrelMail running.

You need a decent amount of knowledge to set that up secure and reliably. If you can, it's very nice though; like being able to "create" addresses on the fly for every site you use. Here's a great tutorial if you want to consider it: http://workaround.org/ispmail (although it might be overkill, I love the flexibility you get with this setup)

A less involved alternative would be a domain with email services from a hosting provider. Most web space, VPS, etc. providers also offer mail services. Granted, you don't really know what they're doing with your mail but then again, you're not exactly sure who accesses your VPS either.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Lazy Jones]

Buy your own domain and server. It's dirt-cheap nowadays and you can use it for lots of other things too.

I would as a last resort, but I'd rather pay someone to look after it for security fixes, upgrades, spam filter configuration etc. than do everything on my own. Surely there must be providers that have a strict policy regarding privacy / personal information and that can be trusted to stick to it and not consider it something temporary until not sticking to it is profitable enough?

Re:Webmail alternative?

[ImaLamer]

Completely OT, and totally trollish to say the least. Even Bing doesn't show any results to back up such a claim.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tuffmail or FastMail are well-respected.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Lazy Jones]

"My privacy is *very* important to me. Who wants to look after my email?"

I don't want anyone to "look after my email", I simply want someone to provide transport, storage and protocols / user interface required for me to access it, without any privacy implications that are not mandated by that service. If you think that a business would be unable to provide this without stealing/exploiting private information, you're overly paranoid and should have grave concerns when seeing a doctor, or talking to a lawyer.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

runbox.com is a very good norwegian provider. Norway privacy laws are rather good too! Other than that you could look into hushmail.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Bronster]

There are a bunch of choices out there actually. I work for one of them (FastMail, now owned by Opera)

We also provide excellent standards compliance and some pretty good power-user features.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

fastmail

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Bronster]

Honestly, running an email server sucks. Unless you WANT to learn about it, it's something that's a lot better outsourced to someone who can deal with keeping spam filter rules up to date, dealing with mail floods, securing everything.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[TheRaven64]

You need a decent amount of knowledge to set that up secure and reliably.

My VPS host provides a few stock installs (I got a custom FreeBSD install, because it wasn't one of their defaults, although NetBSD is). The list includes a load of TurnKey Linux installs. If you just want email, you can buy a cheap account, pick their webmail appliance from the list, and it's up and running almost immediately. You just need to point your DNS at it (most VPS hosts will also sell you a domain and do that bit for you).

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a bunch of choices out there actually. I work for one of them (FastMail, now owned by Opera)

We also provide excellent standards compliance and some pretty good power-user features.

I've been a FastMail user for years. It's cheap, insanely reliable, more secure than anything else I've found, and has very responsive support. An hour after any problem occurs, they put up a blog post describing exactly what broke and what they're changing so it doesn't happen again. The web interface isn't quite as shiny as Google's, but it's way ahead of Squirrelmail, Outlook WA, etc. and is quite a bit faster than any of the above when you're on a high-latency connection.
(Posting AC because I simply never get around to signing up for a real /. account.)

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

try fastmail.fm
rock solid, imap with ssl,decent speed

Re:Webmail alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a domain at 1&1.com and just use it for email. It's $60 a year for everything (1 domain name, web hosting, POP mail, and webmail). I've been there about 5 years now and it's always been great.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[azoblue]

Try Lavabit. Their privacy policy appears pretty solid.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[the_other_chewey]

I don't want anyone to "look after my email", I simply want someone to provide transport, storage and protocols / user interface required for me to access it, without any privacy implications that are not mandated by that service. If you think that a business would be unable to provide this without stealing/exploiting private information, you're overly paranoid and should have grave concerns when seeing a doctor, or talking to a lawyer.

National Security Letter.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[LoganDzwon]

Apple. Check out MobileMe/iCloud.

Re:Webmail alternative?

[mwvdlee]

Does paid GMail use your private information for anything?
I'm sure there are plenty paid webmail hosts that can provide the service you want.
The keyword here is "paid". No company is going to give you anything without expecting something in return.

Removing private account info?

[garatheus]

I got an invite into Google+, was on for a very short time (around 10 minutes I would guess), in which I already had several people "pre-add" me to their lists - for a brand new account (so how exactly have these relationships been formed, or is this some Buzz "feature" where certain people are automatically just linked to my Google+ account?)

I searched around for the privacy settings and was able to (A) first find a location that would remove ALL my Google accounts (but I still use Gmail, so that's not an option), and (B) something that would remove all public account information (and hopefully close the Google+ account). Which it appears to have done.

Didn't really see the need for the service, and my Google Accounts (https://www.google.com/accounts/ManageAccount) seems to indicate that: "You don't yet have a public profile. Learn more
Create a profile or edit your personal info without creating a public profile."

So what does this really mean for me? They're going to be deleting what, exactly?

Re:Removing private account info?

[moronoxyd]

I got an invite into Google+, was on for a very short time (around 10 minutes I would guess), in which I already had several people "pre-add" me to their lists - for a brand new account (so how exactly have these relationships been formed, or is this some Buzz "feature" where certain people are automatically just linked to my Google+ account?)

Those people added your email address to one of their circles. The moment you signed on that was converted to your Google+ account.

Re:Removing private account info?

[ImaLamer]

They are deleting nothing, it doesn't apply to you - and probably most people here. It's hardly even news at all to be honest.

Re:Removing private account info?

[crimperman]

I got an invite into Google+, was on for a very short time (around 10 minutes I would guess), in which I already had several people "pre-add" me to their lists - for a brand new account (so how exactly have these relationships been formed, or is this some Buzz "feature" where certain people are automatically just linked to my Google+ account?)

It's probably worth pointing out that somebody "adding you" in Google+ is not the same as in Facebook or Twitter. Adding somebody to one of your circles in Google+ means you can post stuff TOWARDS them but it does not mean you can see anything of theirs other than their public profile. It's one way only unless they add you to their circle too and even then something you post to a circle I am in won't appear on my default stream. It appears on my incoming stream and I can then choose whether to include things from your circle in my default stream. Also with every post you can choose who (in terms of circles or individuals) gets to see it or not.

It's not perfect and could possibly still be open to abuse by marketeers but they seem to have made a better stab at it that Facebook

Re:Removing private account info?

[slyrat]

I got an invite into Google+, was on for a very short time (around 10 minutes I would guess), in which I already had several people "pre-add" me to their lists - for a brand new account (so how exactly have these relationships been formed, or is this some Buzz "feature" where certain people are automatically just linked to my Google+ account?)

Those people added your email address to one of their circles. The moment you signed on that was converted to your Google+ account.

Think of it something of a mixup between twitter and facebook. You can add whomever you want to your own circles, but you can choose to share with any partial part of that list. Also people can choose to only listen to you if they want. There is also a nice flow chart of how the communication works in google+ and would link it but can't really do that from my current connection to the web.

Re:Removing private account info?

[John Hasler]

At least half of the people I know who are on Facebook (I'm not) will find it completely incomprehensible.

Re:Removing private account info?

[crimperman]

You say that like it's a bad thing ;)

Google are evil bastards of the 21st century

[arcite]

Privacy is disappearing before our eyes. Soon it will be illegal to just log onto the internet anonymously for fear that we may be terrorists or criminals. We'll have to enter our biometrics and submit a blood sample just to get an account! I admit that I use Gmail as it has been very convenient over the years, but I really need to reevaluate convenience for loss of privacy. Maybe I'll just have to migrate all my communications onto my own personal server/domain. That seems like the only recourse.

Re:Google are evil bastards of the 21st century

[ImaLamer]

You provide a well connected, sane and non-paranoid point of view. You are clearly helping the real debate going on about privacy.

Re:Google are evil bastards of the 21st century

[horza]

Or you could not put your real information in?

Phillip.

Re:Google are evil bastards of the 21st century

[ch0rlt0n]

Or you could not put your real information in?

Phillip.

Hi Steve!

Re:Google are evil bastards of the 21st century

[mwvdlee]

Maybe I'll just have to migrate all my communications onto my own personal server/domain.

Which company will host your server?

...please

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, you can't be serious, what is the DRAMA with this? What is the terrible thing that Google has done?
Please for God sake, everyone has its own likes and +1's, don't come here as if you were discussing your favorite football team...
This isn't even nothing!

Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike some of the comments here state, Google+ does *not* make all of your stuff public the second you enter it. For each field that you fill in there is a box that states (initially) "Everyone on the web", once you've filled in the field you get the chance to chance every bit of profile information and decide exactly who it goes to. With your real name for example you can choose to share it with everyone, only people in your circles, people in extended circles (friends of friends), with a specific circle i.e. family only or work colleagues only or you can choose to keep it completely private, or you can just not fill it in. As stated in TFA there are only 2 pieces of info you are *required* to give. If you're that paranoid you can make your nickname public or just to IRC friends for example so you know they'll get a piece of info that they can identify you by but not the rest of it.

It's really a great system in my opinion, I love the flexibility and fine-grained settings, miles better than Facebook.

Also for the record this: "When you join Google+, your profile is already public to the whole internet and search engines. And because it's Google, they have already indexed it by then. There is no way to set it private before it's already public." is complete crap as the settings I mentioned above are applied before you even hit the "Save changes" button on the profile page.

At least take the time to learn about the thing you're publicly slating, though this is slashdot so I guess you can't expect any actual facts here anymore.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

true.

there were 2 things that are always public, if i remember correctly, i believe name and gender?

ok, its too bad that their default setting seems to be "the whole internet" but thats about the same thing with facebook. so i guess they are as bad or slightly better. i think facebook also requires more info from you before you can even make an account, not?

Re:Paranoia much?

[ImaLamer]

It's as bad as people saying they don't want to use Facebook because, gasp, "they" will learn about you. I worked as a marketing database analyst - they have known about you for years. For pennies I could buy demographic data (per household) for my metro area telling me if someone was likely to own pets, what type of money they made, what their job was, their ethnic background and other mundane details. If people are really concerned about their privacy, as much as they claim here, I wonder how they even get to Slashdot. How did they sign up for Internet service - if stolen, how did they get their PCs? Did they ever do anything that could have been sent up to companies like Experian? Because if so - "they" already know.

And really - "they" don't care. Then just want you to buy more tanning visits.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between the USA and Europe. In Europe, companies are not allowed to sell your data on to other people, and it must be used for the purpose it was provided. Europeans feel extremely and personally threatened by the US attitude of "All your information is open, and everyone knows about you".

The "Default deny" mindset is deeply ingrained in the European mindset, due to the violent history of the continent. It's Darwinian: In times of war, loose lips will get you killed.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to use Facebook because, gasp, I read the terms of service and know the history of Facebook's decisions regarding their users. I actually trust Experian far more than Facebook, as they have a much better track record and have earned at least a minimal level of trust over the years.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, having myself worked as a data analyst for a marketing database company within Europe, I can assure you that data is routinely sold, I could find out what wines people bought, what cars they bought, who they banked with, where they lived, their telephone numbers, email addresses, etc etc etc. I could track people as they moved (not on a day to day basis, but when they moved home) use various techniques to find their relatives...

Don't kid yourself, database marketing companies have had this data about you for years and have been selling it to anyone that wanted for just as long.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

However Experian do sell your data, even in Europe, just look around here http://www.experian.co.uk/business-services/marketing-services.html to see the depth and breadth of data they sell.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

F U market-droid douchebag. Just because you are an amoral a $ $ does not mean that we do not value the information that you can so easily buy. I don't want anybody to know anything about me except what I explicitly tell them they can use for only the purposes I tell them to use it for.

Re:Paranoia much?

[perryizgr8]

this is just plain bullshit!

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Can you send me an invite?

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. I guess Facebook doesn't really have a market then. Nobody will buy their data as they already have easy access to it.

I think you misunderstand the people who avoid Facebook. "They" (in the context of a reason not to use Facebook) is not referring strictly to marketing scum such as yourself, but to any external entity that you don't explicitly want to know too much about you. This includes anyone who could potentially "stalk" you, including, but not limited to colleagues, remote acquaintances, employers, employees, government, exes, random strangers who you piss off on teh Internetz by being Facebook apologist or calling a marketing scum and mom.

Besides, since when do you have to give someone your name for buying a PC?

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

I live in Portugal, which is just recovering from decades of totalitarian control and a transition period to a democratic system which consisted of a period of communist influence. In the totalitarian period, the totalitarian regime implemented PIDE, which was intended to "defend the state" against foreign aggression, mainly the expanding soviet union influence primarily at the hands of Portugal's communist party. This led to the state compiling all sorts of available information on each and every citizen, which included their social circles, family ties, jobs, day schedule and the sort, just to keep tabs on who might be a communist or might know a communist. This information was used to persecute communist agents who were directly involved in plots to overthrow the state in order to install a soviet puppet state, but it was also used to persecute regular people who simply didn't liked being poked and prodded by secret polices or didn't approved of how the country was governed. Things were bad, and things were bad because an organization had access to a list of private information compiled on their population.

Once a revolution overthrew the totalitarian regime, there was a period where forces controlled by the soviet union controlled the country, and this automatically led to a continuation, if not aggravation, of the persecution of the portuguese people. With the revolution, the soviet agents used that very same information compiled by PIDE, along with information they gathered themselves, to run all sorts of crimes, including political persecution, thefts masked as nationalizations, and even a series of assassinations. There were even mock trials ran by communists devised to attack people whose only "crime" was owning farmland, being in charge of farms, having more money than the regular peasant or even having ties to land-owners. And this all happened because an organization had access to a list of private information compiled on their population.

So, when I see Facebook and Google+, what I see is a extremely convenient compilation of information on everyone. When I think of it, the PIDE and the communists I've mentioned would kill to get their hands on such a list. I mean, it compiles all information regarding what you've purchased, your social circle, your list of contacts, what you've said, whom you said it to, when you said it, your opinion on everything.... And this information is provided directly by each user, which is far more reliable and detailed than anything even the most dedicated apparatchik could muster in his best days.

So yeah, social networks worry me. And they should worry you too.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get that it's hard to find a person if their name is not a public part of their profile but for what reason are you required to present your sex to the public? Disregarding the obvious pun, do someone that is looking for you need information about the sex to verify that it is really you or is it simply to allow for the possibility to randomly harass members of the opposite sex?

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between the USA and Europe. In Europe, companies are not allowed to sell your data on to other people, and it must be used for the purpose it was provided. Europeans feel extremely and personally threatened by the US attitude of "All your information is open, and everyone knows about you".

Yeah, it's easier to be open when you own guns. Free men don't hide in shadows.

The "Default deny" mindset is deeply ingrained in the European mindset, due to the violent history of the continent. It's Darwinian: In times of war, loose lips will get you killed.

After your children or neighbors pass it on to your government.

Captcha: Fascism. No, really!

Re:Paranoia much?

[camperdave]

If people are really concerned about their privacy, as much as they claim here, I wonder how they even get to Slashdot. How did they sign up for Internet service - if stolen, how did they get their PCs? .

PC was a dumpster dive. It's running ubuntu. I was given a wireless NIC by a classmate. Getting to Slashdot "tracelessly" isn't that tough.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do though as I know from friends who work at telemarketing agencies (they get all kinds of phone number lists they are not supposed to have at least) (Austria here)

Re:Paranoia much?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's as bad as people saying they don't want to use Facebook because, gasp, "they" will learn about you. I worked as a marketing database analyst - they have known about you for years. For pennies I could buy demographic data (per household)

As a marketing database analyst you ought to understand that Facebook's gargantuan valuation is due entirely to their ability to "learn about you." It is the company's sole source of income. If facebook's data collection really was no more egregious than current practices there is absolutely no way wall-street would be drowning in their own drool over the company.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people are really concerned about their privacy, as much as they claim here, I wonder how they even get to Slashdot. How did they sign up for Internet service - if stolen, how did they get their PCs? Did they ever do anything that could have been sent up to companies like Experian? Because if so - "they" already know.

I agree, it's inevitable that marketing companies will learn about you. So, screw with them. I've managed to muddy the waters so much over the years that they have no clue how old I really am (I get stuff for 20 years old and retirees), what my income bracket is (I get stuff for all demographic ranges, including stuff targeted at the rich), what race I am, if I'm married or not, and so on. I'm sure if someone wanted to try hard enough they could sort through all the conflicting stuff and figure out the truth, but marketing companies aren't going to bother, that wouldn't be cost effective. And while they certainly know I exist, they have so much difficulty figuring out who I really am that I have better privacy than I would if I simply tried to wipe myself out of the databases.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you or have you ever been a member of the facebook group Communist Party

Re:Paranoia much?

[ccguy]

In Europe, companies are not allowed to sell your data on to other people

I live in Spain and I must tell you, I'm 38 and I've never received a single commercial letter from anyone I didn't explicitly allowed to. So much that every day I'm waiting for the mailman to ask him to let me take a peek at whatever envelopes he's carrying - out of pure envy. Some neighbors are still in their 20s and they already lost they snail spam cherry.
Ah, if any of this was actually true... one can dream :-)

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

"always public" means that your name and gender will be seen how you choose by one of your ring, all your rings, friends friends in specific ring, everyone on internet.
It does not mean that your name and gender will be seen everyone on internet unless you want so.
Google made this change so people can not create a private profiles what have not joined to any ring or their information (name and gender) can not be seen by people in same ring.

The situation is now this:

Google+ is like a restaurant.

1) When you reserve a table from it, you can choose do you sit front of the window where everyone passing by (internet) can see you
2) do you reserve table from middle of restaurant where only people in restaurant (google+) can see you
3) do you reserve a cabinet where people who you invite there will see you.

Imagine the tables as round ones. There are people sitting on them. But now in Google+ you can choose on what tables you want to sit. but tables where you dont sit, you can rule out they dont see you as they are in cabinets.

Now it was possible to be anonymous in table. So you could chat and talk with people around table, but they did not know who you are. Do you like that?
It is correct to at least tell your name to people who you talk more than small talk in bus stop. And people can see (usually) which gender you are.

And your name is in phonebooks... They are in skype...
Your address and other information can usually be gained from government with one phone call.
Your car register plate can be used to get information who owns the car and address.

Facebook is site what tries all the ways to push all the information to whole world. To every computer to be collecting them. It is hard to make friend lists and limit the information who you know and who can get that information.

Google does totally different thing with Google+ where you control whom sees who are your friends and what you say to whom.

So what if Google+ users can do a search with your (nick)name? Is it so terrible? At least they can not see anything else if you dont want to show.

Have you wanted to be anonymous in school where no one, not even the teacher, would know your name? Or that your boss would not know your name? Is your name such that you feel sorry for yourself having it? If so, then change your name.

With facebook, world could easily see all the stupidity what you said and who you knew/know. With Google+ people can only see "Hey, it is me... contact to me". And it is very easy to keep people not seeing anything what you dont want. Not your location, your job, your relationship or your photo.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I don't care how much data about me google has. Their only purpose is to better target ads. Why should I care? It's absolutely in google's best interest not to do anything creepy with this data.

Re:Paranoia much?

[ImaLamer]

Yes, I'm amoral because I used the data others collected to send you bulk mail - highly targeted bulk mail that you likely responded to because I was good at my job.

It's my fault someone collected it. If I didn't have the job, my boss would have bought the data and had someone else do create the lists...

But you don't understand my point. You say you don't want this happening, but you are doing nothing to stop it - but bitching, right? Because you really lost the ability to control this a long, long time ago.

Re:Paranoia much?

[ImaLamer]

The value you mention is accuracy - which is not that sought after in the current market. Right now if you create a mailing list for motorcycle owners, which no one can actually use (DMV laws against it) and instead use inferred data - you will get the same response rate as you typically do. It's really up to the analysts. Facebook can gather data, but the question is can they actually leverage it - or will they sell you a data dump? Will it be an external or internal cost? Right now, you can place ads there, but you can't just buy from them a list of names and interests (income, and etc).

In that regard Facebook could at most, right now, give me partial information - name, city, phone number. If they are provided. E-mail would require a TOS change. They don't ask for a street address. So I would then need to do a merge with my existing consumer database and find out where John P. Smith lives, if I have him, or do I have him as John Smith, no initial.

There is another side to it - that you don't mention, and I failed to - a channel to reach consumers. Facebook, beyond interstitial ads, could be the mailing address, the inbox, etc for individuals and households you would like to hit. E-mail laws are in place, phone laws are in place (snail mail - forget it - bulk mailing supports the post office). There is no reason Facebook couldn't suddenly turn on a way for someone to send marketing material to users directly.

If facebook's data collection really was no more egregious than current practices there is absolutely no way wall-street would be drowning in their own drool over the company.

I disagree. They are valued because of the user-base and the eyeballs for ads right now - and using the data generically to target ads (they are horrible! I would do much better with a custom list... and probably charge less). They can not learn any more than what Visa is telling Experian, etc. Why do you think you have been urged to get that Debit Mastercard? The credit card companies, and their ilk, the houses who collect, analyze and sell this data - some totally private - are valued indeed. Facebook has yet to be traded in a way to let the market actually decide their value. It's a guess - and it's the internet - it's fleeting at best.

I don't even come to say I support all of this marketing stuff. I was called scum, over and over here - and I take it with a grain of salt and all. I was floored myself when I learned how it all worked - but we have to make money. Creating a mailing list isn't exactly dumping petrochemicals in the river by the playground. In reality, no one looks at the names - no one checks up on people. The lists are actually made to be small - and not to bother people who won't reply (it's a higher cost per contact/response/order/etc).

Re:Paranoia much?

[ImaLamer]

(I'm the parent poster to the AC)

I agree, I am with you. I replied once to a survey card at 14 years old saying I made $250,000+, was the CIO (or the equivalent), and made the purchasing decisions for 10,000+ employees. For a year I received a free copy of a weekly IT magazine. I loved it - but can't remember the magazine's name.

Re:Paranoia much?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

In reality, no one looks at the names - no one checks up on people.

Except for, at a minimum, all of the companies like Acxiom who handle the outsourced surveillance from DHS/FBI/CIA/ETC that would probably be illegal if it were done by the government directly.

Don't mistake your particular niche in the personal information ecosystem for the only niche.

No real information required

[Anonymous Coward]

> At the moment the only information Google requires users to reveal is their name and gender.

Slight correction : reveal A name and A gender (options: male/female/other)

aliases?

[ememessien]

My major gripe with facebook (and the reason why I refused to sign up) has always been that they force users to reveal actual data about themselves, initially through the use of university email accounts and then extended to allow workplace email accounts. They have also been known to delete profiles where the user has attempted to hide behind an alias. Thankfully google has not done this and as such my google account profile contains a phony name with a DOB and location to match.

Re:aliases?

[gsslay]

Any website can force you to fill a box in. They can't force you to fill it with true information.

Particularly if it looks like it may be true and they have no way of knowing otherwise.

Re:aliases?

[John Hasler]

> Any website can force you to fill a box in.

No Website can force you to do anything.

First Time

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually the first time I'm really angry at what Google do.

This is not good for Google's future and is in my opinion a pure Evil move. Especially when you see how they word their explanation clearly saying that this is a problem for you to keep your profile.

Of course you have the choice: keep your profile private, they delete it. Put it public and delete all non basic information, the people you know and chat with also loose what you deleted.

Then, they'll make it so that in the future, you'll need a public profile in order to use google services.

Google assists stalkers and private investigators

[elucido]

should be the title of the article. And the question is why? Why empower hacker groups like Anonymous?

And what about that crazy ex? Now they can find you again and reconnect, and I'm sure you'll love them for it.

Use the name Bull Shit.

[elucido]

And call it a polite proper profile.

Google+ tracking cookie

[triclipse]

I have been noticing the new Google+ tracking cookie popping up across the web as well. (I blocked it with Ghostery.) Not sure what it does, perhaps someone could explain?

Re:Google+ tracking cookie

[perryizgr8]

i think it might have to do something with those ugly little '+1' buttons sprouting up all over the place. interestingly, ie9's tracking protection feature automatically blocks +1 buttons and fb like buttons too. i would like to see this feature built-in in a future firefox so that i can actually use it.

Re:Google+ tracking cookie

[euxneks]

It might be to help out with the +1 thing that google's doing.

Re:Google+ tracking cookie

[triclipse]

Have you tried the Ghostery add on for Firefox? It does the trick.

Re:Google+ tracking cookie

[Anonymous Coward]

My best guess is that it identifies you for purposes of the +1 button, which is similar to Facebook's Like button. If you press it, that web page shows up on your G+ profile on the +1 tab. But even if you never press it, it still tells Google that you visited that web page.

Web pages like it because they get to be recommended on social networks. And the social networks like it because they can track your browsing habits. It's win/win!

Re:Google+ tracking cookie

[bunnyman]

My best guess is that it identifies you for purposes of the +1 button, which is similar to Facebook's Like button. If you press it, that web page shows up on your G+ profile on the +1 tab. But even if you never press it, it still tells Google that you visited that web page.

Web pages like it because they get to be recommended on social networks. And the social networks like it because they can track your browsing habits. It's win/win!

Re:Google+ tracking cookie

[perryizgr8]

yes, i have tried ghostery. and it works very efficiently, blocks almost all tracking elements. but it is a pain to use. ie9's thingie does not need any user input at all.

Re:Google+ tracking cookie

[PastaLover]

I'll guess that it's probably tied to the +1 button and the same principle as facebook's like button (i.e. allows google to show you how many of your friends have +1'd the article, while conveniently giving them data on every visitor that visits any page with a +1 button on it).

Mod parent up, cgeys is a paid Astroturfer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, cgeys is a paid Astroturfer. Read his comment history 90% have a vague pro MS or pro facebook remark in them. Several stories always get submitted like this with vague unsubstatiated "Google is the privacy devil" themes and out com one of the 2m+ UIDs like him to post the first comment. dave420, x**xy**y and all the rest.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/05/12/138229/Facebook-Admits-Hiring-PR-Firm-To-Smear-Google

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/facebook-admits-to-hiring-pr-firm-for-google-smear-campaign/48650

Re:Mod parent up, cgeys is a paid Astroturfer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down, but mod grandparent up.

What's the big deal?

[Jartan]

This isn't a social site. It sounds more like a "here's my web card" or something sort of site. Why would you even use it if you wanted that info private?

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right it isn't and because of that the public interest isn't being served. the goal is to profit from your identity and information. Profit is determined by what is perceived as wealth. Controlling you helps generate wealth. Only difference between a socialism and capitalism is who you are being screwed by. On one hand you are being screwed by the government for the social welfare. On the other hand you are being screwed by capitalist interests for their own welfare. Take your pick. :)

Get a grip...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a grip people, no one is forcing you to have a Google profile. No one is forcing you to use +1. If people add you to their circle and you aren't signed up, they aren't going to see anything you do.

If you have privacy concerns, block their cookies, and use other search/email/etc providers. Or just google search in Incognito mode.

Google is a company with staff to pay, costs to cover, and shareholders to keep happy. They need to make money. They are giving away most of their services for free, in return we give up some of our anonymity. Sounds like a fair deal to me so I choose it. If it's not a fair deal for you, go elsewhere. Yes it would be nice if they had a "I'll pay you $small/month if you don't track me or look at my stuff" but they probably think that the money they'd make wouldn't cover the costs or be worthwhile in the long term. At the end of the day, as long as people continue to use their services, (and it's legal), they can do whatever they want!

Safety first.

[Tei]

I don't think giving your real name on the internet is a good idea, at all. Because of the special way Internet work, some criminal can collect a lot of information about you, and use that information against you. Where you live, what are you friends, what is the name of your childrens, his age,... maybe you don't provide that information in one place, but using your name and other bits, people can get all the information. Is no safe. If you have a antivirus and a firewall to product your computer, why you don't have a "firewall" to protect your childrens or yourself? this firewall is Gratis, is the anonymity. Using your real name break that protection.
Using a nickname on the internet use to be common sense. But then this type of wallet gardens make popular to use your name. And what happends wen you remove one of the walls of the wallet garden? all the asumptions that where true at first, are not true anymore. A public profile is a wallet garden withouth the wallet. You can, and you will, get your information indexed. Deleting private profiles is like deleting people that use antivirus. Is removing the option to do the things the right way. Is a bad idea. There will be tears, and I will be there to say: I told you so.

Re:Safety first.

[YttriumOxide]

I don't think giving your real name on the internet is a good idea, at all. Because of the special way Internet work, some criminal can collect a lot of information about you, and use that information against you. Where you live, what are you friends, what is the name of your childrens, his age,...

Hi, my name is Benjamin de Waal. My alias here is "yttriumoxide", but elsewhere I usually go by "YttriumOx" or similar.
I currently live in Hannover, Germany. Specifically, in the suburb called "Heideviertel". However I was born in Dunedin, New Zealand and have travelled rather extensively, including living in 5 countries so far and visiting somewhere in the region of 40 (I have a list somewhere, but not with me right now).
I have a lot of friends all over the world, on account of having lived in many different places.
My wife's name is Steffi (Stefanie) and my 3 month old daughter is Sam (Samantha).

Honestly, I don't feel in the slightest bit insecure about "criminals" getting this information or "using it against me" (and no-one has ever effectively explained to me how this information could be used against me anyway (or especially "why" it would be) other than what I consider to be paranoid ramblings). You can search online for the above information and probably find out a lot more about me, including seeing pictures, learning about my interests (including illegal activities), finding out what I do for a job and what I've done in the past, etc. None of this bothers me. If I didn't expect it to be public, I wouldn't have put it online to begin with.

Re:Safety first.

[JazzHarper]

If you are in a profession, your name and your reputation are your brand. Prospective clients are not going to be interested in doing business with an alias or an anonymous person. An anonymous person is regarded as untrustworthy, insignificant and forgettable. For some people, the whole point of being on the internet is to establish and publicize their names.

Re:Safety first.

[teh kurisu]

I don't think giving your real name on the internet is a good idea, at all.

That depends on how common your name is. If your name's John Smith, there's really not that much to fear.

My name isn't particularly common, but it's common enough for its Wikipedia page to list several sportsmen (one of them moderately famous), a politician, a musician and an actor. Criminals may be able to collect a lot of information about people with my name, but how will they be able to tie that information to me?

Re:Safety first.

[Anonymous Coward]

I owe a lot of money to a lot of single moms. I don't want them to find me.

Re:Safety first.

[John Hasler]

There is information about me on the Web as well, though not nearly as much as about you. Most of it is a matter of public record so it would be silly to call it "private". Most of the rest, while not formally in the public record like my birthdate, is irrelevant trivia. It is interesting that much of it is wrong, though. You can find several erroneous versions of my SSN, for example.

Re:Safety first.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

(and no-one has ever effectively explained to me how this information could be used against me anyway (or especially "why" it would be)

You are making the classic mistake of assuming that just because you can't currently think of a way your personal information can be used maliciously that it will never be used that way. The problem with thinking that way is that it is open ended, people are constantly looking for new ways to exploit information on the net. Once you've put your information out there, you can never get your privacy back no matter how strongly you may change your mind.

Here's just one example of how the information you just provided might be used to do you harm:

XBox SWATing - You can be sure that no one in that household ever even considered they might be "doxed" and then attacked that way.

Re:Safety first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad about the "Germany" bit. If you were in an English-speaking country, you'd have just given me enough information to find out your street address, phone number, likely your recent travel and moving history, the names of your parents (including your mother's maiden name), and possibly some photographs of you.

From that, it would be possible to impersonate you for any number of purposes, most of them illegal (accessing your current financial accounts, setting up new accounts in your name for money laundering, using your identity on forged official documents, etc.)

Re:Safety first.

[YttriumOxide]

Too bad about the "Germany" bit. If you were in an English-speaking country, you'd have just given me enough information to find out your street address, phone number, likely your recent travel and moving history, the names of your parents (including your mother's maiden name), and possibly some photographs of you.

Google might tell you a fair bit of that info already. Photographs definitely; travel/moving most likely; Address maybe not (since I only moved pretty recently) and phone number not yet (it should be at dastelefonbuch.de, but for some reason it doesn't appear to be listed... maybe I forgot to tick a box somewhere)

From that, it would be possible to impersonate you for any number of purposes, most of them illegal (accessing your current financial accounts, setting up new accounts in your name for money laundering, using your identity on forged official documents, etc.)

Nope, not really. Even with that info, you're still lacking any kind of ID to say you're me, which is required anywhere I've ever lived to be able to access accounts, set up new accounts, use my identify on official documents (forged or otherwise), etc.

Honestly, are there places in the world you can set up a bank account or do other financial or governmental business WITHOUT showing some kind of ID?

Of course, with enough info you could probably create a good enough fake ID and other documents for basic stuff, but unless you're also willing to break in to my mailbox daily to steal any confirmation letters, or go through the hassle of renting a new apartment in my name before telling all of my services that you want access to that I've moved, you're not going to be able to do a great deal of damage. And, more to the point, the whole exercise would cost you far more than you'd gain. I did mention I'm married and have a 3 month old daughter - that kind of precludes me having any money ;)

Re:Safety first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with that info, you're still lacking any kind of ID to say you're me,

So, let me get this straight, you base your belief in the non-value of all that personal information on the unforgeability of an ID? You are ridiculously naive.

Here's the reason no one has fucked with you yet, nobody cares about you.

As soon as become a "person of interest" you are screwed. Don't piss off anyone, don't get in anyone's way, don't get famous, don't see something you "shouldn't" see, don't be at the wrong place and the wrong time and you'll be fine.

And you know what? Chances are none of that will ever happen to you either. But if it does - and you have zero control over much of it - you are going to wish like hell you'd been a little more mindful of your privacy. And then it will be too damn late.

Just changed my name to Mark Zuckerberg

[hippo]

and my gender is now Bitch!

No, your profile is not public

[Funnnny]

You choose the part you want to show, only Gender and Name are the part you can't hide.
Isn't this the way Facebook doing now ?

Re:No, your profile is not public

[teh kurisu]

Facebook requires you to be male or female, but there's a checkbox titled 'Show my gender in my Profile', so you have the option of not making it public. From what I've read, your gender is both required and public on Google+.

What I'd like to know is whether there are options for transgendered or intersex individuals, who may not be comfortable identifying with either gender.

My Google account is a Google Apps account, so Google Profile and Google+ are still completely unavailable to me, so I'm not sure how it works.

Re:No, your profile is not public

[Russianspi]

Yup, your gender choices are "Male", "Female", and "Other". That about covers everything...

Re:No, your profile is not public

[Sporkinum]

I went ahead and made my google profile public. All it has is nonsense for name and other for gender. My gmail account is only used as a spam catcher/signer upper for web sites.

What is a "Google Profile"?

[gsslay]

Can someone elaborate please? Might help me decide if I care about this or not.

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an article about it here: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388120,00.asp

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever posted this is wanting to scare people, plain and simple. You DO NOT need to have a profile (public or private) to retain your Google account. You will still be able to access your Google Docs, Gmail, or whatever other services you use associated with a Google account.

I would assume this is a move to eliminate duplicate profiles for various people who like to use multiple email address to separate various parts of their life (ie. work, receipts, bills, etc.). This would make sense since they are eventually going to make every profile available for a Google+ invite. This is their way of thinning the herd of multiple profiles for one actual user.

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I can tell after a quick search, it is the login you use for every single Google service, including GMail etc.. Main article could really do with emphasizing this.

I this means that anyone who has a 'Google Profile' (i.e. Gmail or anything else) already, is joining Google+ no matter what, unless they delete their profile or something; someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[Dogtanian]

"Google profile"

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[rbfblk]

No. "Google Profiles" is just one of the services Google offers (https://profiles.google.com). Gmail is another service (https://mail.google.com). Both fall under the umbrella of your Google account. Having Gmail does not mean you have a 'Google Profile', just like having Gmail does not mean you are signed up for Blogger, YouTube, Picasa, Music Beta, etc... If you have previously gone to https://profiles.google.com/ and signed up for that service then it sounds like you must explicitly make your profile page public or it will be deleted. If you choose to sign up for Google Plus then your Google Profile page will be rolled into Google Plus. This has nothing to do with Gmail.

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously you don't then.

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before Plus, a Google Profile was a public card showing your username, what Google Services you chose to make public, and if you wanted to add more details, actual name, contact info, etc. I don't believe it had much use before except to view reviews you wrote, link to Blogger, or view Latitude visits. In Plus, it's basically serving the same function except, as mentioned, They're now demanding more data to verify your identity, although you can still choose to make most of it private. In Plus, it adds any public posts you make, as well as your Picasa photo stream.

Is there room for abuse of this information? Of course. I'm not personally worried about it, however; it's a hell of a lot clearer what is private and public and how to change these things in Plus than it was in my opinion on Facebook. My privacy concerns have never been about big business - anyone who's worked in a large company knows how little they care about one single consumer. My concerns have always been about other users getting data and using it for theft, stalking, that sort of thing and it's much easier to fight that sort of abuse with Plus.

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory, and ironic...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=google+profile
http://profiles.google.com/

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing to be worried about. The problem is in the confusing naming of things. Here's how it works:

1. You have a Google Account/Login

This login/account can be connected to accounts on all other services of Google (Gmail, youtube, etc) and manage them all.

2. That account can have a profile or not have a profile. (THIS is the key here)

If you have a profile, that means you've created sort of a "life-card" for your account (similar to a Business card in the real world) that helps describe who you are and what you do (and how to contact/find you). *** You do NOT have to create a profile. ***

If you choose to have a private profile, THAT (i.e. the profile) will be deleted on August 1. Your account will still be fine, but your profile will no longer exist. Think of it as getting rid of all your business cards, and your entry in the phone book.

Of course, without a profile, your account will not be able to use Google+ (and possibly other services as well).

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[Deorus]

This is inaccurate. You can have a Google account without having a Google profile (as is the case of my own account).

Re:What is a "Google Profile"?

[timpaton]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google+profile

Why??? Why??

[Anonymous Coward]

Really - I don't want this Google+, I just want email and Docs, and I am perfectly willing to click on your ads to fund it.

did not understand +1 app*

[web tasarm]

I added +1 to my site http://www.sibersonik.com/ ,but I did not understand what is that?

it's bad to see that

[netlover1080z]

it's bad to see that. i moved to my home country site Luat dau thau

I just want to know one thing...

[Grave]

Do these wallets come with cash in them? Or is the garden not that generous?

Corporations as buddies concept

[Anonymous Coward]

You people running your perspective corporations will never be our buddies. You are not to be trusted. You are monsters with huge agendas. Don't even suppose that we don't see through this attempt to seek transparent windows into our lives to gain an edge. You will never be human. You will never be trusted to be buddies.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to move to a system where the subject of information owns copyright over any such information about him/herself. Whether it be my personally-identifying information or my behavioral information (e.g. shopping habits), I should own it. The "collector" of information is NOT the owner! He is merely *borrowing* use of it from me so he can provide a service to me, for which I am paying (in most cases).

Social Experiment

[nitehawk214]

"Social Experiment", I don't think that term means what you think it means.

"Social Networking Experiment", would be a very accurate term for Google+, but "Social Experiment" makes it sound like they are just trolling.

Re:Social Experiment

[ceoyoyo]

Trolling on a Google scale would be a social experiment, no?

Google+ invites

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone please send me an invite? I'd like to try it out.

Here is my throwaway address:

ad.cafe.1985@gmail.com

Thanks!

Great Idea

[fuzznutz]

This war on drugs is working out just great for us. Any day now, we'll have it all wrapped up and be done with it.

Seriously? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. My state can't afford to pay its bills and is thinking about privatizing state prisons, and you want to lock up kids being kids and ruin their future. When I was 18, the drinking age was 18 and nobody had a shit fit until MADD convinced Reagan to blackmail the states into raising the age. I'm all for locking up violent criminals, but the sheer number of new "offenses" being dreamed up every year is why we have the largest percentage of incarcerated population in the civilized world. All these paranoid, law-and-order-at-any-cost, types are just plain stupid...

1955 called ...

[tomhudson]

Would you want someone openly vocal about how they broke the law when they were younger teaching your kids?

That's how bad laws get changed, by people openly breaking the law.

1955 called - Rosa Parks wants to have a talk with you.

Re:1955 called ...

[Vanderhoth]

Sorry, that's not what I meant by "vocal about openly breaking the law".

We're getting into a moral/ethical grey area here. Although I'm not directly against the use of drugs like pot, I see a huge potential for abuse and don't believe it should be legal. I wouldn't brag to my kids about what I did in my college days, I don't want their teachers bragging about drugs they did either. That being said if in their later high school years I find out my kid had tried drugs, I'll let them know I don't approve, but I'm not going to castrate them for it... the first time that is.

Rallying against laws that are hateful and designed to be discriminatory based on race, sex, sexual orientation or disability are a different matter. I want my kids to question authority, but I also want them to pick their battles and comply when it's in their best interest. Like not killing someone. Teaching your kids when it's appropriate to break a law is harder to do.

Re:1955 called ...

[alexo]

We're getting into a moral/ethical grey area here. Although I'm not directly against the use of drugs like pot, I see a huge potential for abuse and don't believe it should be legal.

We're getting into a moral/ethical grey area here. Although I'm not directly against you being allowed to speak your opinion, I see a huge potential for abuse and don't believe it should be legal.

DuckDuckGo uses Google

[brokeninside]

And Yahoo, and Bing, and all sorts of other search APIs.

So if the intent is to eliminate use of Google services, switching to ddg won't do it.

It does, however, minimize the amount of data that Google can collect from you as an individual using Google services.

Google Scholar is best used from a library

[brokeninside]

When used from a library with access through those paywalls, Google Scholar is made of awesome. It effectively allows searching of virtually every major academic research database from one front end.

But, it would be nice if offered a full citation of articles it finds. The best research databases will offer up the abstract and full citation but not all of them do that.

Re:Google assists stalkers and private investigato

[wintercolby]

Actually, if all it reports is your name and your gender, stalkers and private investigators probably already know this about you.

Re:Mod parent up!

[John Hasler]

We need to move to a system where the subject of information owns copyright over any such information about him/herself.

Copyright does not apply to information.

Whether it be my personally-identifying information or my behavioral information (e.g. shopping habits), I should own it.

So I can't tell anyone that you drive a Toyota or tell them where you work without getting your permission first. Great idea.

Google Apps Support

[archigos]

I wonder if this could be a step toward supporting "profiles" for Google Apps subscribers?

Star Wars Jedi Google Pow Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Wars Jedi

He doesn't need a "Google Profile."
He doesn't need to create a "Google Profile."
His gmail account is not affected by these changes.

-- sombody laugh damn it, the worlds going to hell.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Copyright does not apply to information.

Of course it does. What you probably mean is that you can't copyright facts.

So I can't tell anyone that you drive a Toyota or tell them where you work without getting your permission first. Great idea.

Not on a wholesale level, no. And yes it is a great idea. It's called Informational Self-Determination.

Can't wait for Google double plus

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that it is really really good. So good that you will like it or else, citizen.

What if you have a Google Login but no Profile?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the article says your account will be deleted if your Profile is private. But what if you don't have a Google Profile?

(I DO have a Google login, gmail account etc, but no profile: i.e., when I go to "Account Settings," I see: "You don't yet have a public profile. Learn more. Create a profile or edit your personal info without creating a public profile.")

Will my account still be deleted?

Why did you make a profile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you make a profile in the first place? It's not required to use gmail, etc.

Family Pot

[poena.dare]

My Mom gave me pot in the 70's. Nothing bad happened.

I gave pot to my son in the 00's. He turned it down. I said to him: YOU UNGRATEFUL CHILD. I USED TO WALK FIVE MILES IN THE SNOW TO GET A QUARTER OUNCE.

Frankly, I find refusing pot to be indefensible. But since I love my son I'll put up with it.

Everyone complaining about this is simply...

[Anonymous Coward]

...misunderstanding what it really means.

After going through random peoples networks to ensure I am linking a random facebook account:

http://www.facebook.com/shemaiah.gonzalez

That profile is a "public" profile.

The name and gender are shown, and an optional picture that can actually be made hidden is she wanted.

This is all Google+ requires.

Everything else is hidden.
Your wall, pictures, friends or circles, etc.
Everything.
Should you decide to make a post and make it "public", then anyone can see it.

But so long as you make your content you provide within the network only viewable to people in specific circles you've selected then there is no worry.

When they say "public", they mean publicly searchable, and somewhat verifiable because some names are cross gender names.

THAT IS ALL.

Stop discussing this now, please.

There was a thread on /g/ the other night about this and people were making this mistake there as well.

Maybe Google needs to publicly clarify this because it's easily misunderstood.