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.