Slashdot Mirror
Security Expert Slams Google+ Pseudonym Policy
An anonymous reader writes "A security expert has panned Google's "real name" policy on Google+, claiming that the hard line will damage privacy. Sophos's Chester Wisniewski says that closing accounts where users have adopted false names erodes privacy on the social network. 'What they seemed to have missed is that the very foundation of privacy is identity. Simply knowing my postal code or birth date is meaningless without a name to associate it with. By requiring people to only use their real names, unless they just happen to be a celebrity, they have eliminated the ability for people to be private in any meaningful way.'"
friendster was poised to be the facebook of its age. it was wildly popular and growing explosively. i forget the year (2004? 2003?)
then friendster started taking a hard line: no goofy fake name accounts, such accounts were deleted
so people left in droves for a perky startup called myspace
i remember this issue clearly covered in the press, but i can't seem to find any references to such stories to show you what doomed friendster and allowed myspace to take over, apologies
but anyway: learn from history google, or be doomed to repeat it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I have still yet to see them use the real name policy on anyone in my circles. Who checks the names? Do they need to be reported? I'm looking at one of my circles right now, and I see names like Sordid Euphemism, Mr Dragon, reddit brony, Fluttershy, the autowitch, Rainbow Danish, etc. Not to mention my own obviously fake name. As far as I can tell this policy isn't being strictly enforced, if at all. That doesn't change the fact that it is a stupid policy, but they don't seem to be removing fake accounts left and right.
I am normally a huge google fan, and I actually just recently de-activated my facebook account in favor of G+, but I do believe the main difference is enforcement. Facebook basically says "Please don't make accounts to bogus names", but 1/4th of the accounts on it are dogs, children and psudonyms, and they have made zero effort to stop that. While G+ is actually actively suspending accounts and taking out other Google services in the process. Basically it's the difference between a sign that says "Keep off the grass", and beware of the dog (with trained attack dogs paroling the grass).
Anonymity and privacy are two different things. If Google is going for privacy without anonymity, they're going to have to start teaching people the difference.
They are different IRL; not so much on the internetz. Given how easily it is to (a) collect data about someone, (b) store it, (c) preserve it from degrading, and (d) communicate it, anonymity IS privacy, and sometimes even that is not enough. Privacy is always a single [security breach | disgruntled employee | greedy suit] away from disappearing; anonymity requires much more effort to dispel.
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
By requiring people to only use their real names, unless they just happen to be a celebrity, they have eliminated the ability for people to be private in any meaningful way.
What a nice twisting of words. How is "having to use your real name" different from being indexed in a phone listing or birthday directory? I think this author needs to look up the definition of "being private". Being private does not mean that people are unaware that you exist or that they are unable to attribute your opinions or other personal data. Rather, it means that you have control over who can access what of your personal data, and I found that easier to do in G+ than FB which is one of the reasons I rather use G+.
Also FB is known for paying people to badmouth Google. Just saying...
I'm firmly atheist. I don't choose to participate in skepticism advocacy, but if I choose to, I might well prefer a pseudonym. (There are several fundamentalists in my management chain at work.)
I know of several people who are involved in the burner and pagan communities, who keep all of their non-mundane activities under pseudonyms. I don't currently know anyone involved in the SCA, but in the past I understood that many people didn't mix their role and real life.
I've been told that the BDSM community uses nicknames almost exclusively.
Many actors, musicians, authors, etc. work under pseudonyms, and would probably prefer not to mix their personal and public identities.
People being stalked (in real life or online) might have something to say, but not want to post under their real name.
Activists in the middle east and china certain prefer not to be forced to post under their real name.
Pretty much any individual or community that is subject to personal, social, legal, or political harassment may have motivation to operate in a public space, but use pseudonyms.
How about having a couple of flags, for "anonymous accounts" and "pseudonymous" accounts (the latter being "google knows my name and has verified it as much as anything else, but it isn't posted associated with this account). And indicate anony/psuedo accounts at the top of the profile screen. Add a security setting to block them entirely.
I'm really disappointed with all of the "If you don't like it, go find your own social network!" apologist drivel. That's one step away from "Fuck you, if you don't like what America does, why don't you leave you damn liberal!". Hyper-capitalist worship of business has generated this culture where any sort of despicable behavior by a business, especially large corporation is beyond reproach. "You" peon consumer, can either choose not to buy it, or you can shut up. You don't have the right to criticize a business, so keep your head down, slave. I honestly didn't expect it to come to Slashdot.
That said, this is yet another decisions that absolutely proves Google+ is more of the same and that "Do No Evil" has gone out the fucking window. Everyone leaving Facebook for egregious privacy breeches are now going to find that Google is unlikely to be any better. Google doesn't want you to be anonymous - all its data mining is moot if it can't say "We have X number of 40+ men who have more than 5 sub-30 women in their circles, and thus you want to buy ad space from us GoldDiggerMatch.com! We have people who are likely to use yours services". Google+ had the potential to change the playing field, but if this is their policy they're going to cause more of the same bullshit and may very well be worse than even Facebook. If Google starts corroborating your Google Apps behavior, your Google searches, and your Google+ activity, as personally identifiable, we're going to have privacy violations that make Facebook look like pocket change. Health (and other types of) insurance companies already troll Facebook to find bits of information that allow them to jack up premiums, deny coverage, or say you don't need it. Hell, some sort of private disability insurance (AFLAC?) bought access to Facebook data and used the fact that one of their current members made a post about helping a friend move, to revoke his disability payments because "if he was doing that, he wasn't disabled anymore". The guy had to fight it in court and I'm unsure of the outcome. Imagine how much worse this could be if everything this guy ever Gmailed or searched was up for such scrutiny? Yes, I'm aware that the sky hasn't completely fallen yet, but seeing Google make the decisions they have over the past 3 years or so, it gives cause for alarm.
Requiring a real name, (ie a name that is a valid, confirmed GoogleCheckout address ) is absolutely barbaric and exposes people to asymmetrical risk. Sure, the John Smiths or Mohammad Alis of the world may have some obscurity to help, but if your name is Atiriyah Ellicott-Andravine and someone has both that name and your general location or zip-code, some googling and a $5 people-search site report may be enough to steal that person's identity if you really wanted. Its amazing what you can do with a name, address, zip, phone, email address, names of relatives and very little else. Regardless if your name is common or rare, nobody should have to bring meatspace identity online, and those places where it is necessary (ie. shipping addresses) should be heavily walled off to ensure that nobody is selling their customers and payment information to the highest bidder.
Privacy and anonymity are of the highest importance and social networking can easily provide the above. Yes, you have to deal with the fakes and the spammers but that is a small price to pay for anonymous and private information exchange. Google should but their considerable resources towards eliminating the spam accounts, rather than throw their hands up and tell people "Whoops, sorry! The company that sells special appliances and makes its entire livelihood on discerning good information from bad and showing it to users based on customizable parameters through advanced algorithms just can't seem to discern when one of its own accounts is spamming or otherwise being a bad member of the community in any financially viable way. So yeah, you all need to use your real names instead". Give me a fucking break. This is a