Slashdot Mirror
Google+ Account Suspensions Over ToS Drawing Fire
ideonexus writes "Reports of Google+ deleting user accounts are all over, including Limor Fried — AKA Lady Ada / Adafruit Industries (recently featured in Wired Magazine) and former Google employee Kirrily 'Skud' Robert for violating Google's identity ToS. Other users are finding themselves locked out of their accounts without an explanation of how they violated the ToS. The worst part for these individuals is that a lock-out of Google+ includes being locked out of all Google services, including email, calendar, and documents."
would get his account suspended, too...
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I've been locked in Google+ for a week now....please send help...running low on air...heeeellllllppppp!
There have been some claims that this is an example Google being evil but this seems more like incompetence and hamfistedness than evil. This would be silly and minor if not for the reports that some of these people can't access their other Google products they use. Many people use gmail for their primary email. If any of these people use it for business they could be actively losing money from this. But this does lead to two basic lessons which are apparently not repeated enough: First, when you use a free service you get what you paid for. Second, backing things up is always a good idea.
You know for all of Facebook's privacy infringement, there is one ace in the sleeve Google+ has over their users that Facebook does not: Gmail.
...and they don't make exceptions to celebrities? I think if Google allowed some people to have fake identities and some not, this same article would be front page Slashdot and the haters will still be hatin'
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Lets not forget that Facebook has been deactivating user accounts on the suspicion that they're using an alias for many years, they have a small dictionary of banned names to do this automatically. Have a unique first name like "Husky Smithson"? Too bad.
Only difference is Facebook accounts are not also used for email and other essential services.
Getting all your services from one company sure is convenient until you have problems with one part of their service but not the other.
Like getting you Internet shut off because you are in dispute with the cell phone devision. We don't learn shit from history.
Kobnyc in TFA comments:
"The article refers to deletions "en masse" and "striking number" and "dam had burst" etc but nowhere provides any hard or soft numbers to go with these clearly inflammatory adjectives."
I, too, want some numbers.
The worst part for these individuals is that a lock-out of Google+ includes being locked out of all Google services, including email, calendar, and documents.
Which is why it's always important avoid concentrating your services in just one provider.
It's one thing to suspend someone's Google Plus account. That's new, is still truly beta (not just Google Beta), and no one depends on it yet for anything serious. But locking someone out of their Gmail? And not explaining why? That's simply unacceptable. This could discourage people from using Plus.
I know I'm a bit shaky about using now and I don't do anything that critical on Gmail.
Lady Ada's account was restored yesterday. https://plus.google.com/108772200278976934119/posts
-dammit!
its a good way to lose business. google should congratulate the morons running these policies. they killed google+ before it started for me.
and on another note, this situation basically drew my attention to the fact that relying on google is not a good thing.
Read radical news here
Dealing with invididual eggs is just too cumbersome.
So instead, I carry all in one large basket.
What could possibly go wrong?
I wonder how g+ can know if a name is real or not. I mean, it is obious that "lady ada" is a pseudonym, but what if someone was called bya peculiar and also strange name? how would g+ handle that?
I think google is too afraid that its social network will be used for nefarious purposes. I think Google worries too much: possibly evil people will register with a name as realisitc as possible, but it will not be their real name, while many legitimate users that go by their pseuodyms will suffer.
G+ also does not let you login from the same ip address twice, from what I see so far. How can this work for families with many members but only one computef? or machines shared by different people in different shifts in a business setting?
There was a reason why people wanted their own PCs instead of relying on mainframe access. You keep your data in the cloud because looking for a decentralized way seems too much work. Now live with the consequences. (And yes, this is the logical consequence, not just a glitch.)
What better way to publicize their security features than to lock out a few high profile individuals and have them tweet the story all the way to Slashdot?
...is that they both had their handles as part of their name, in quotes, on their profile. It would be interesting to see what proportion of locked accounts have handles embedded in their real name.
If a Web site demands that you give them your real phone number so that they can call you up to verify who you are, in order to use their "free" services, then that "free" service isn't worth using.
People may still think I'm a loser for not having a Facebook account. But really, in the end, I'm the one who is looking like a genius.
When corporations become too big, they inevitably become evil. That is a trend anyways. I can't think of any exceptions. Disney and Google (and Enron etc... et al) sure do have the marketing power to make people want to drink the Kool-Aid. Personally, I love Koo Aide, but I don't except free drinks from Internet Evangelists.
This whole trend of requiring real names and phone numbers to use the Internet (or its most popular services) is on the wrong track for safe and anonymous Web browsing.
Now that Slashdot has done the right thing and divorced themselves from Facebook and Twitter, I may get a new account here (once again).
Makes me reconsider if I wish to use it. If Google shut down my G+ account, or Facebook shut down my account or the like I'd lose no sleep over it. I really am not in to social networking and I think it is mostly a silly way for people to waste time at work (I've got better ways to waste time at work, like Slashdot :). However I would be rather angry if my G-mail account was shut down. I have a lot of important things directed to it and it would be rather inconvenient if shut down.
I signed up because friends invited me. I'll have to think if I want to stay signed up as G+ is just something silly to keep my friends happy, G-mail is something I use a lot and I don't want one to risk the other.
I read the article and the biggest and most fearful thing that many people who were affected by this was that all of their Google services, including Gmail were affected and disabled.
I only use Gmail for e-mail functionality because it is free and convenient and it is my primary e-mail address that has stayed universal through ISP changes and moves. I was quite well aware of Google's privacy policy and advertisement angle along with the fact that all of them will be available forever to Google, before I signed up to Gmail and have been weary every since. The offer of convenient, free, reliable, spam-free, managed by someone else, and universally accepted Gmail account had a lot of benefits since I didn't have to buy my own domain, maintain my own e-mail server, and deal with spam filtering
I still haven't been burned by Gmail but I'm now wondering that since Google has become such a large entity it is surely going to suffer the fate of a behemoth afflicted by blind bureaucracy and the e-mails that they have forever will somehow get out to agencies, companies, or people who I don't want them to see.
I'm going to seriously look into the technical and logical feasibility of install a mail server on my Linux box in my house which is going to require that I manage my own services and spam filtering along with dealing with the hoops of trying to run a mail server behind an ISP with my own domain name.
I always thought that Google+ would face a lot of attacks from Facebook, but I was wrong. Google is mostly going to be attacked by Google.
I cannot believe that Google would be so foolish as to anger people in this manner. I really wonder if there is another reason for this, someone with an agenda to hurt Google+. I can't think of any one that would do such a thing, everybody loves Google, right? If Google doesn't step forward, and deal with this very fast, they can see this startup go the way of Buzz, and then watch as their stock value plunges.
I love a train wreck....
Listen up and let me tell you a story.
Teh Google OWNS You !! And have your monkey, too !!
How can Google allow a BETA service to shut down STABLE services. This doesn't seem very smart.
mods before you mark this a troll, please consider my point carefully as it has validity.
the people in question would not have ToS violations for their names if they had put their real names in the "real name" fields and their nickname/alias in the "nickname" field.
Kirrily "Skud" Robert is not his real name. Kirrily Robert is his real name and Skud is his nickname.
Limor Fried “Ladyada” is not a real name but Limor Fried is.
While heavy-handed and without warning, these users did actually violate the ToS. That said, it seems Google should inform users that adding their nickname to their real name is not ok.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
This has to be the fault of those users. Google is the World's Greatest Company and can do no wrong. Just look at their incredible search engine with its amazing ability to change my search words to the correct words instead of giving me results for those obviously wrong words that I typed. No other search engine can do that.
Though I don't have G+ or Adsense etc, after reading this, Google Deletes Last 7 Years Of User's Digital Life (http://consumerist.com/2011/07/google-deletes-last-7-years-of-users-digital-life-shrugs.html), I've started taking gmail, gdocs backups.
Gmail : http://www.gmail-backup.com/
Google Docs: http://code.google.com/p/gdocbackup/downloads/list
Though the ideal solution would be to have your own domain. I got mine, a .me from Namecheap for $7.49 just a few weeks ago and using it with free Windows Live (http://domains.live.com/) for email (and you can have 500 emails, 25GB Skydrive, 5GB synced storage etc), which I can change anytime I want by changing MX records at Namecheap.
So this is just like they've been locking up AdSense accounts, with no reason and no information given, with (sometimes lots of) money on them? Just a lot less serious.
Moreover, I can only ascribe the suggestion that his account be suspended merely on grounds of him being deceased to the most blatant vitalism.
I hear that Verizon at least acts as an equal-opportunity provider in this respect. Especially if the account is on direct-debit.
a big boot standing on your neck, forever.
This is a pretty absurd thing, and I don't want to take the risk to fall into the same trap.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
I still can see new posts from Lady Ada who happens to be in my circles ...
Trading modest convenience for the a greatly increased risk of service disruption.
Of course, while you're all worried about that, no-one is talking about the modest convenience of Google+ being able to hide your drunken weekend party photos from your boss being traded for the risk that the Big G gets to know everything about you and track your current whereabouts via your phone.
Attempt to log into their account. If you fail enough times the account gets locked and you need a cellphone to receive an SMS to get it unlocked.
{^_^}
I thought I would let everyone know one thing I noticed since google plus launched is that you can't change the primary email address on your google account. So if you created a google account not using the email address you normally use and instead say a gmail address then you will have a problem. As Google plus sends all its notifications to your primary email address (you cant change this either) you cant use it properly. Make sure if you create a google plus account you use a google account that has a primary address you monitor often as you cant change it later.
Funny and Interesting things from all around the net
i think the biggest problem for me would be if i needed to reset my htc desire. as not only would i lose my primary means of comunication
i would also lose my only complete contacts list that i have
So Google will suspend my social media and email account if I break their TOS.
Last time I checked facebook offers both social media and email services as well do you really think they wouldn't pull the plug on both those services they supply in a second if you broke their TOS?
I won't be getting a Google+ account. I don't care whether this is doing evil or sheer incompetence (I'm betting on the latter), but to lose access to all Google-related services especially Gmail, is complete and utter BS. The fact that a company the size of Google can get by without any sort of customer service is beyond me.
The only answer.
Don't like the policies of the node? Leave. You lose nothing - and your friends can freely follow too.
I have no sympathy for those who buy into these closed "networks" -- and a Data Liberation Tool is no substitute for actual openness.
Please stop posting any news articles that are written by violet blue. She poses as a journalist when all she writes is op-ed.
Seriously, the less people wasting time reading her articles the better technology will be.
This is why Federated Services Rock!
Centralized services blow.
Google can do whatever they like. They alway could. They are like a drug dealer gaining users by giving away the first "taste." You've known this all along.
Facebook is worse that Google because to use it in the most useful way, you have to bring 200 of your friends with you. I don't have any friends on Facebook - on purpose. The social links scare me. Those associations are simply too powerful to be allowed in advertising companies.
Google and Facebook and LinkedIn are never cross connected either. All that data together would be soo scary - but that is the holy grail for advertisers. That's what they want to know ... er ... everything about you AND your friends.
You've known this for years. Put it together and be smarter about this stuff.
In another comment someone called Facebook "essential services" - talk about an idiot. There is NOTHING essential about facebook. I know this since I have a facebook account and only use it to redirect people to other, federated services hosted elsewhere.
So if you created a google account not using the email address you normally use and instead say a gmail address then you will have a problem. As Google plus sends all its notifications to your primary email address (you cant change this either) you cant use it properly.
For Gmail: Options (the cog button in the top right hand corner) / Mail Settings / Forwarding / Add a forwarding address
I wonder if we should start to worry for Pussypopptimus Prime? It would be sad to see her go! She is, as she says, "the ALPHA and OMEGA in this crazy ass thing called life" after all. Her about page: https://plus.google.com/112816236983095089898/about
(originally found by Xeni Jardin from Boing Boing)
Maybe they strike hard on purpose, passing a very clear message to spammers and businesses: Google+ as of now is for real people only and if you don't like that fact, you don't come mess with our system.
They can do it as of now because it's still an invite-only system and because most people do use their real name on GMail / Google+ and hence that "en masse" ban represent, what, 0.001% of user accounts being banned.
I realize it's an issue for "Lady Gaga" but maybe that's going to be fixed once Google+ for business is out.
In any case, they'll be able to spin this around saying "look ma, no spammers here...".
100% sucky that you get your GMail confiscated that said... This scares me. They should have locked you out of Google+, maybe by disabling your Google Profile but still letting you in GMail (like people with Google Apps for domain / businesses can log into GMail but cannot have a Google Profile and hence cannot have Google+).
as I wrote yesterday:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2343964&cid=36854874
this kind of integration has the potential to disrupt other services you use. Logged in the news search is now totally broken, showing only a tiny fraction of the results I got before, while logged out, it continues to work just fine. The mystery as to what is causing this and how it can be solved has yet to be solved, but it probably has a lot to do with a large company thinking it knows what's best for you based on where you create your account/where you use your account regardless of language settings, the site you actually try to use, etc.
used for email and other essential services
Seriously, having one email address is just as dumb as only having one front-door key. If you lose it you're screwed. Everybody with any sense or experience has more than one, a backup, a fallback. In fact the more email accounts you have the greater is your ability to tip the social media power in your favour, rather than the advertisers.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
In today's world of free email it sounds silly to pay for personal email but I would happily pay $20-$50 a year for an email account if I was assured that if I had problem with my account or get locked out, I can actually call a customer support number and talk to a human who will help me with the problem. I know Yahoo offers premium email service for $35 a year. What I don't know is there is any customer support associated with it (if there is it is likely to be better than Google's as the latter doesn't have any at all).
I've always hated the way google are forcing you to create one login all over the place, its bad and evil of them.
(Note to fools: Yeah, you could create different google accounts, but then you have to login and out all the time in one hell of a logout circus, something you wouldn't have to do if it was with different companies not using a global login)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
You get up tomorrow and log into GMail. You can't get in. Your account is locked. Your mail, calendar, documents — all gone. What do you do now?
Remember that Google has no customer service, even for paying customers. If your account is locked for any reason, spurious or not, you're utterly fucked.
I keep a regular backup of my GMail. The official interface is IMAP, but GMail's IMAP implementation is really flaky (e.g. Thunderbird or mail.app won't suck everything down). The way to do this that actually works is with OfflineIMAP. It's command-line and geeky, but by crikey it works.
Using it on Ubuntu or Debian is absurdly simple:
This will create a folder with all your mail in it, in mbox format (readable plain text). You will have duplicate messages in different folders. I'm just doing this to get an archive, so zipped the result.
GMail's IMAP interface is subtly broken, to the point where it can crash offlineimap. Just start it running again, repeat as often as necessary. (If you like, get a more current version.)
GMail is still the best email interface I've ever used, and I wish Thunderbird would just get the hint and clone it to the last detail. But this way I also have all my stuff myself, just because I can.
I haven't tried this on a Mac or Windows. Could someone do this and write up instructions?
For other Google services, you can get your data from Google Takeout. While your account's not locked.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
.... individuals is that a lock-out of Google+ includes being locked out of all Google services, including email, calendar, and documents."
So how's that fucking Cloudy thingy working out for you now?
My email, calendar, and documents are thoroughly backed up, and though I use online email if it were lost tomorrow I can get more email addresses and alert my contact list easily.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
A friend of mine had some twat post a blog on Google's Blogger, using their name and photo, impersonating them, claiming that they are the "number one pedophile rights activist" and other such things in that vein. He has been hounded by social services and questioned about it by his son's school (a picture of his son also features on the blog). If you Google his name, that blog is the first result.
This friend has now spent over a year trying to get Google to remove this blog. Despite being a clear victim of vindictive impersonation, and despite him REPEATEDLY faxing in copies of his driver's license and such as per Google's impersonation policy, it's still up there. And as previously noted, it has affected his wife and kid before, to the point of nearly getting his son taken away. And Google won't do anything.
Funny how when they're trying to launch a whole new social network, they suddenly spring into action.
I write bullshit
Google could be running the world, they're just too damn incompetent.
Guess they shoulda thought about that before breaking the TOS.
Google IS EVIL!
Get over it, Google fanboys.
Gmail's user interface is fine if you check your e-mail address only from computers permanently connected to the Internet. But if you like to use e-mail while on the road, and you don't pay a luxury price for mobile broadband, then you have what's called an "intermittent connection to the Internet", and you need a way to read e-mail while offline. According to this page, Gmail's offline support wasn't working with Chrome, IE 9, or Firefox 5 two months ago.
Social networks = strangers spying on your life and selling that information to others. Eventually companies like Facebook and Twitter will just end up as the next big bubble. Facebook is a perfect example of this. Their revenue for 2010 was close to 2 billion dollars but Since Goldman Sachs gave them money they are now "supposedly" valued at 50 billion. WTF!! Are they using the social network as a cover for a large counterfiet ring? It's all hype and there's no reason a company like this should be valued this high. Goldman Sachs = hump and dump then looking for a bail out. Nothing new here. Move along.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
OK, this is quite a good scam they have going. They first get you to get an account, which means you agree to give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services (chapter 11, see 11.2 why the limitation in 11.1 doesn't matter for much). Then they throw you out, so they don't even have to provide a service for it.
Not sure what that is called, but amounts to contracting under false pretenses. Could get entertaining.
However, IANAL, but it is mildly amusing to see all those people suddenly realising what "free" actually means..
Autistic slashbots.
Google being Google.
A similar thing happened to me back in '08 with my AdWords account. They just made all advertising suddenly cost 10 times the price because certain things they wanted on my website were missing. It took about a year before I got a straight answer so I could make the changes and start advertising again.
I don't know if it's the strong engineering culture, but Google have always been terrible at client services. I love their products, but whenever I have client relationship to them (a.k.a. giving them money), I'm always left severely wanting. It's too bad, because not only do I love their other services, I really appreciate their contributions to the world. I would much rather spend money there then Bing or Yahoo if only they didn't make it so frustrating.
Google needs to mature a bit if they are going to be the world's IT server.
a friend at google sent me an invite a while ago. out of respect for him, I gave it a try.
one hour later, I deleted my profile. it just did not feel right and I have heard about the 'risk' of losing gmail if google 'didnt like you' in some way or another.
they do have TOO MUCH POWER. its our fault for coming to depend on gmail too much. I'm now in the process of migrating OFF gmail but this will take some time.
I could see g+ being nothing but trouble and trying to watch google watching me. no thanks. even for an hour, it felt spooky being part of it.
as soon as I can get off gmail, I'll say goodbye to google services. I already use other search engines. not sure what else there is that I 'need' from google.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Can't tell you why your account was locked, it's top secret. We would have to shoot you after telling you.
It would be bad if I lost my Gmail account but I do have a DRP (Disaster Recovery Plan) for that. I download everything each month via IMAP to have a local backup and for all registrations instead of just using my Gmail address I use an e-mail address in my own domain which redirects to my Gmail address. It would be bad if I lost my Gmail account but I do have a DRP for that.
It would be bad if I lost my Gmail account but I do have a DRP (Disaster Recovery Plan) for that. I download everything each month via IMAP to have a local backup and for all registrations instead of just using my Gmail address I use an e-mail address in my own domain which redirects to my Gmail address. It would be bad if I lost my Gmail account but I do have a DRP for that.
Question to anyone whose Google account has been suspended (for whatever reason): Is the gmail account still accessible and functional via IMAP4/POP3, or is it a total lock-out?
--Udo.
I think it makes sense. Social networking and anonymity have very small over lap. Google probably wants to serve only those who want social networking without anonymity with some level of privacy controls. As long as they don't block anonymous users from other services, it is not bad.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This, and other account lock-out issues, are good examples of why Google+ is still an invite only, BETA service. Everyone can calm down now.
Off-topic, but why does the zdnet article use this picture of the Vietnam Memorial (well actually, a picture of a US silver dollar depicting the memorial)? Just because it has a list of names, and the article is about names? Couldn't they have found something a little more appropriate? And it's not like they found the image without knowing what it was, the title on the flickr page clearly states what it is.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
So... You're evil, huh? It's always something...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
quite an apt comment.
Read radical news here
Why would anyone put their important data on any free SaaS (latest buzzword = "cloud") site? Why would you use gmail for anything other than a spam trap?
What is the disaster recovery plan and SLA for your google data?
Do you think Google makes money by respecting your privacy and making sure your data is always safe and available?
Finally, why would you trust your data to services, even if they were paid and you had some recourse should there be a failure, that are always in beta test?
Also the image acompanying the article is extremely inappropriate, equating mass loss of life during war with losing access to your free google services. I'd have commented on the article's site but you have to register with them to comment, I won't give them free content and spend time registering with my spamtrap google email :).
why the hell aren't you using POP3 for e-mail if you need to read it off line?
Maybe they should have fucking followed the terms of service. Thats not so hard, is it? You don'T want to use your real name? fine, don't use google+. When they say no nicknames, and you use a name that is ver *obviously* not your real name, and then complain about it.... well you get what you deserve.
To lose my google accounts would be very harmful to my general well being because I have so much work related crap in there, and now I am wondering if that was a good idea at all. Having hundreds of documents in Google Accounts that can just be summarily shut off at a whim is like just leaving your wallet on the sidewalk for safekeeping. I don't like this.
The irony is that Lady Gaga isn't her actual name.
Governments provide a framework for legally recognized aliases: p/k/a (professionally known as) and d/b/a (doing business as).
There are plenty of people named Suparman, and Batman is a city on the Batman River in another Muslim part of the world.
why the hell aren't you using POP3 for e-mail if you need to read it off line?
So we agree. (By "T-bird" in the title I meant Mozilla Thunderbird, a mail user agent supporting IMAP and POP3.)
Never combine your email account with a social networking account. Keep the buggers separate.
Single sign-on could become an antitrust issue. A single sign-on system which supports sign-on to third-party sites, yet can be arbitrarily turned off by the provider of the sign-on system at their discretion, creates "restraint of trade" issues. Google's sign-on system reaches beyond Google; Zoho, a business email system, accepts Google signons. Facebook's sign-on system reaches far beyond Facebook.
Arguably, single sign on systems should be split off as separate companies to comply with antitrust law. This may come up when Schmidt testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September.
So you don't approve of their evil privacy violating TOS in one app, your personality is applied to all services?
Good luck keeping business with that attitude. Normally companies don't try pulling stunts like that until after they have eradicated the competition.
Don't get me wrong, i do like Google, but this is way out of line. ( so is the original TOS )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The whole TOS suspension for non-real-name thing stopped me in my tracks. What really irks me is that I started to sign up and nowhere did it explicitly say that I couldn't use a pseudonym. Maybe it's because I canceled it when it tried to reassign my Picasa account to the profile - I don't want that to change, thank you.
I've gone by my Nome-de-net of since I first started using the Internet and have used it in my web site since I first registered that in 1998.
There are probably more people who know me by that name or by my SCA name than know me by my "real name". I don't intentionally go out of my way to hide it, but I do normally kind of keep my identities separate (mostly for organizational purposes). I really don't like the idea of directly linking all three on a single profile though.
My family and employer are the only ones who regularly call me by my "real name". Most of my real life friends call me by my SCA name because that's how I was originally introduced to them, and anyone who knows me only on-line knows me by DigitalSorceress. All three are me, and I am the same person / personality throughout,... but I like to keep the distinction as it helps me keep track of "where do you know me from".
The Digital Sorceress
Make that penalty, not personality.. Grrrr!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The biggest issue is that once someone creates a G+ account, all their existing Google content comes under that account, thus a suspension of the G+ account means goodbye to gmail, YouTube, blogger, Calendar and so on.. all content is disabled and it's almost impossible to get it back (unless you are a celebrity or your story gets published in media).
Sort of hurts people with an android phone ( or tablet ) too..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I mean, locking you out of your account, where you have all of your data?
Sure, the service is free, and they have the right to cancel you at any time ... but cancelling should be giving you all of your data back. Restricting access to your own information doesn't sound very legal to me. A hotel has the right to kick you out, but they need to give you your belongings first. My point is, they should disable all features of your account, but still allow you to log in. Just redirect your log-in to a blank page with a single link ... a link to a zip file containing everything you had stored in there. It doesn't matter if the service is online or offline, free or paid, your data is your data.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
If anyone cares, I've started a Google Detox, and will slowly start quitting their services.
I wrote a bit about it on my site, http://k3rnel.net/2011/07/24/starting-the-google-detox-rsslounge/ and in fact have already quit G+ and Buzz and all (And gave them a link to this Slashdot post as the reason for doing so).
Leaving Gmail will be a gigantic pain in the ass, as most of my other online accounts link to that email address, but I'll get over it in the next few weeks.
Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
These actions reek of another Bay area company, Linden Labs, who ban you based on shaky grounds and do not respond to appeal requests, and will often direct you to a lawyer and will even intimidate you if you do so (happened to a friend of mine)
Sounds like they hired a few former linden labs employees (not a far stretch either) to manage google+ considering the massive amount of bans going on.
LL employees pride themselves on banning people.
There was a case in 2006 when Second Life got popular, this Microsoft employee doing a presentation on Second Life and its benefits during a seminar was very rudley interrupted by a Linden Lbs employee who screamed "STOP THIS STOP THIS NOW!" and ran through the crowd, ran on stage, took his microphone and yelled "YOU'RE TOAST."
and then cited some rule and said he was banned, all while smiling and getting a huge rush over her power trip, and he was banned in 5 minutes of her making a phone call.
His crime? His son was on stage with him and that was "account sharing" with someone under the age of 18.
No way to appeal it.
Needless to say, Microsoft stopped all interest in Linden Labs shortly after, as their entire IP block was banned.
Betting that people like her work for G+ n
...as to how Google suddenly became indebted to provide these services.
The implication with these posts is that we're already dependent on Google for free calendar, email and a bunch of other stuff. And if Google suddenly cuts off those services for one reason or another, Google is bad.
I can't see how Google+ -- which is not even technically out of beta -- is a service that Google is morally required to provide to anyone. Same thing for Google's other search services.
If you're using Google's services, you're in Google's house and you should expect to play entirely by their rules. Google is far less evil than a lot of companies are.
Maybe someone can explain the logical leap between "this corporate service is/was partially free" and "I am entitled to use this service on my own terms".
Agree with the user above. See, this poem blog from their blogspot site-
http://wonderingminstrels.blogspot.com/2000/01/lake-isle-of-innisfree-william-butler.html
A few years back, this poem site was hosted by a university student on the university server. Magically, it seems, he has transferred all the content over to blogspot. How did Google give him permission in the first place? Also note all comments till 2007 have user names which were extracted from their user-id that the university user used to extract the comments from the email-based comment system. They show up in black, ie, not google or registered blogspot users. Now if someone wants a comment removed, or does not want his comment to show up outside the university intranet, tough luck. Because Google's hosting it, and they don't care if you have a beef with how the content got transferred to blogspot.
How do I know this? Because a few years back, I had asked a comment to be posted witholding my name. The request was ignored, but the comment was posted. Earlier, it was confined to the university, and by contacting the webmaster I had it removed. Try that with Google, they don't even send an acknowledge to such privacy requests. Easier to talk to /dev/null
Google staffers need to read this: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names
The assumptions Google+ makes about "real names" don't even apply for that many people in Mountain View, California, let alone the full range of people in the global Internet culture. Just for one example, it's common for Javanese people to have just one name, not a first and last name, as in the case of an important figure in modern Indonesian history, Sukarno. That's his entire name.
Holy crap people. Google has been one of the most magnanimous companies out there in regards to what it provides every day Joe and Jane Shmoes like us. It has grown so much that it is unreasonable to expect one of their tens of thousands of new employees to not make a small blip on the otherwise aptly followed "don't do evil" slate of google. Simmer down. Shutting down ALL of your google services because of a google+ mixup couldn't be considered intentional by any rational person.
So much for Google's blog post in February, "The freedom to be who you want to be..." which extolled the "great benefits" of pseudonymity. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-be-who-you-want-to-be.html
Other recent suspensions:
Lists of suspensions:
Examples of Google's double standard and inconsistency:
the JoshMeister on Security
Some people such as "Soulja Boy" (a recording artist) and "Violet Blue" (the author of the linked ZDNet article) get special treatment and have not been suspended for using their pseudonyms on Google+
It turns out that Violet Blue is her real name (my mistake; sorry, Violet!). Reference: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/YnzXfbpe9Nj
That actually brings up another problem: people with real names that are unusual or creative who have to live in fear of Google employees mistakenly suspending their accounts!
the JoshMeister on Security
I'm fairly certain that Google isn't a real persons name, nor is the pseudonym Google+. Therefore under their own ToS they must revoke their own access to the service.
Since Google knows full well that they intend to enforce their TOS terms with automated scripts that will certainly have some residual false positive rate no matter how much they burnish and buff, and they never intend to provide manpower to handle all of the complaints (which potentially includes every account they lock out for legitimate reasons) they need to take a more moderate view on the terms of suspension.
One of the consequences is that you lose access to your own personal information. Google should certainly provide a mechanism for a locked-out user to retrieve a copy of their email and calendar as of the time of lock-out.
An automated system with no human appeal mechanism should not be flirting with disenfranchisement.
Evil is as evil does.
https://plus.google.com/106912596786226524817/posts/Z363KsqgVaY
Well, after reading through these comments and going through the Google+ group on Google's site, I've decided that it's time to cancel my Google+ account. It's a real shame, because I was excited at the possibility of actually having a social network out there that isn't Facebook, but after reading so many horror stories (the Google group is literally full of them), I've decided that I'm just not willing to take the risk of linking my primary Gmail account with a social network. I live abroad and Gmail is my primary contact point with the world back home; I can't afford to put that at risk.
Knowing that Google doesn't have much in the way of customer service (that was a generous assessment) and knowing how they've botched social media in the past (Google Buzz, I'm looking at you here), I'm simply too scared that I'll lose my Gmail and never get it back. Time to cancel my Google+ account, at least until Google makes some kind of public statement about this rash of suspensions.
I have the best solution to all of these problems. Log into Google-accounts and CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT.
I've tried it myself, and all of my problems with Google went away. A lot of their services are great, but it's when you register an account you bump into all of the problems.
I am simply amazed that all the usually "Blame Microsoft" lunatics have not come out in force and blamed them for this outrage. Honestly, if Microsoft had pulled this brain dead move it would have been jumped over by the readers of this forum like a nude virgin in a men's prison. However, since it is Google, it is basically getting a pass.
Google is everything the Microsoft haters have been accusing Microsoft of and worse. I would not trust Google as far as I would trust a pedophile around a young child. They both have the same intentions.
Pigskin-Referee
Linux: Yesterday's technology, tomorrow
A few months ago, I tried uploading a Word document to Google Docs and shared it with some friends. Then I discovered that the import process had damaged the doc, so I deleted it.
I guess because my doc was shared and its removal took it away from my friends, my account was immediately suspended "for suspicious activity." I was locked out of my email and my blog disappeared. The only way back in was to "prove" I'm me by giving Google a telephone number (!), which a hacker (if there had really been one) could have done to take over my identity.
I like the sound of Google+, but I am afraid to try it because there is no telling what minor misstep may get a user locked out of everything at once.
When she first opened her G+ profile, it was under "Adafruit Industries" not under Limor or Lady Ada. This was against Google's policy (remember they told businesses to hold off until they had features rolled out for business users). How do I know that? I had her in my circles and she only changed it over a week/week.5 later. I mention this because this detail doesn't seem to be getting any airplay.
Reply to That ||
"The worst part for these individuals is that a lock-out of Google+ includes being locked out of all Google services, including email, calendar, and documents."
This is simply not true. A name violation Google+ DOES NOT lock you out of other Google services.
Violating Google's TOS (e.g. spamming, child porn, hate speech, etc.) will cause you to be locked out of your Google account.
These are two conflated issues -- Please edit to stop the spread of FUD.
Does anyone remember when we used to be social online without the aid of evil multi-national corporations? And the worst that would happen is you'd get K-Lined from a channel or server.
Oh and no one was selling marketing data on you either.
For the time being, it never hurts to make backups regularly, as with any other data on your systems. I believe in addition to that, GMail has it's own exporting. I agree with your statements though.
Reply to That ||
There are several things you should be aware of:
1. Google is evil, and will continue being evil because, contrary to what you think:
2. For a mega-corporation, being evil makes good business sense.
If everyone on Google+ has to use their "real name", then how the hell am I gonna find all my real friends?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
"People hold online anonymity up as a virtue and necessity. I say it is the root cause of a social disease, and should be greatly limited." — Matt Greenfield
That is the root of this "holier than thou", aka koolaid, disease. When somebody thinks freedom of speech is evil and needs limitation. Yes, anonymity equals freedom of speech. Otherwise, every post should be 100% public to stamp out hidden grumbling disease; it also begs the question of why do Circles even exist? It also assumes you can trust a "real name" more than any pseudonym. Where's the CV and double-verified references first?
There's a great amount of historical, anonymous authorship, besides old and new revolutions, that back this.
Commingling of all services where one negative affects the others directly has shades of "universal default" that's already been outlawed, besides monopolistic policies. Google already has the ability to track the individual through this "suspension" system so blaming pseudonyms is nothing but a straw-man distraction.
Draconian, Stalinist policies have no place in continued history.
"People hold online anonymity up as a virtue and necessity. I say it is the root cause of a social disease, and should be greatly limited." — Matt Greenfield
This is probably the basis why Google wants only real names. But, they're only lying to themselves in their hubric white-towers: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/
As a user currently caught up in the Purge, I'm very disappointed. Google+ promised they would have a different approach to Privacy than the nosy and intrusive FaceBook. And now a month later Google+ is requiring users to mail in copies of their Government ID in order to be allowed to continue using the service? And even then they won't let users keep their government name private. And what'll it be next month? Maybe a pay stub? At this rate, by wintertime Google will want blood samples and fingerprints. Just so we can look at and share pics of LOL Cats? Who do they think they are?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
what next? shall I send google copies of my birth certificate and a profile picture with 80% of my face on grey background? Internet is an unsafe place and internet social networking was supposed to be fun. Monetizing is everything...
Guys, can you read and act on facts?
Even if your Google+ profile is suspended, you CAN still use ALL Google products that does not require a profile: Email, Calender, Doc, etc.
I want to see this guy http://www.monkeyreview.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/7q824.jpg get an account :)
Shakespeare poems - infinite monkeys with infinite time.Computer tech support - a few trained ones working from 9 to 5.
with corporations that give out free-bees skepticism is the better choice.
Instead of diving full-fledge into these corporate interfaces folks should try to bittorrent and privitize the social networks.
If it is real the fed-head corporate hypnotizers won't even hear about it . . .
Maybe it already exists but you are just to hypnotized by giggling corporations that you don't see it right in front of you.
You don't need a corporation to micro blog.
Do it in PHP with xml.
Open and free and not owned by U