Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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?
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
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.
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.
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.
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.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
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?
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
You provide a well connected, sane and non-paranoid point of view. You are clearly helping the real debate going on about privacy.
Get your Unix fortune now!
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/
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.
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.
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.
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).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Can someone elaborate please? Might help me decide if I care about this or not.
My name is Mr. Herp Derp, you insensitive clod!
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
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.
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.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
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.
I think what he meant by
What if you *didn't* take every conceivable precaution and something *did* happen?
I know what he meant.
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...
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.
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.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"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.
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!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.