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.'"
buy stock in a tin foil company with all the hats that are being made lately.
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'm pretty sure that's Google's exact intention. If you force people to use their real name, tracking them over all the web gets much easier.
If large amounts of people abandon Facebook for G+ they will be motivated by having more control over their privacy. Taking that motivation away, before G+ is even out of beta is a fairly stupid thing for Google to do.
Given what happened with Buzz I'm starting to think that Google has some decision makers who are either very stupid or very out of touch with how people think. I suggest leaving the office and geek circles to get to know some regular people.
I'm glad I created my G+ account with a faux name that sounds like a real name if this is the way they are going to be.
I'm not sure how facebook managed to break the established internet culture of pseudonymity simply by asking for real names (ie: why people complied), but google can't just do the same.
Anyone in the market for a new social network isn't going to be facebook's core market of, well retards, so this isn't going to wash.
Also, facebook never conquered Japan because pseudonymity culture is too strong. If google want market share, they need to offer something different.
I value the importance of privacy as much as any good Slashdot reader, but we're talking about an opt-in social network. If you want privacy, don't use the service that's already linked to everything else you do publicly on the Internet. Rather, get your privacy at one of the other, "more secure," social networking sites, like Facebook, or MySpace. Better yet, eschew social networking altogether. Or, if you want an anonymous social network that plays by your rules, build one.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -Douglas Adams, THHGTTG
Someone who calls themselves Joe Jones is undetectable as a pseudonym, while at the same time Daddy Fantastic and Jet Black would probably be suspended for using their legal names
Why would you go on a social network to be private? There's all this uproar about social networks allowing other people to learn about you. You're being social, you're communicating and sharing with people. There's no uproar because you can be photographed picking up your dry cleaning.
The point of social networks is to share. That's naturally counterproductive to privacy. At the very least I must know something about who I'm sharing information with or I wouldn't be there.
The only real privacy on a social network could be within your circle of "friends", as opposed to having a public profile. But within that circle absolute privacy would be pointless.
Developers: We can use your help.
The choice to join is still yours. If you don't like it, don't join it, pure and simple.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Sorry, I really don't want to talk or even interact with anyone not accountable for their actions. (And yes, my account name has a real name behind it so I am accountable, too.) Generally, it's no big deal. However, it's a problem just often enough that I want to be able to report "jerkish" behavior when necessary. And I want someone to do something about it. (I am not allowed to shoot these people.) Sites that do not respond these reports lose my business. Just my 2 cents. Literally.
Isn't a social network non-private by definition? There are plenty of ways to meet and communicate with people that are somewhat private and anonymous, but a social network (on the internet or in meatspace) is not one of them.
No thats a good move from google. Look at all these anonymous assholes all over the web. Nobody in real life would act like this. Anonymity has its place, like here, and it can also be fun to go berserk under anonymity, nothing bad about that. But its also not necessarily bad demanding real names. Some foras work fine by it. Tracking is another matter, yes.
ability for people to be private in any meaningful way.
Code words for spamming, trolling, and PR astroturfing.
I am thrilled G+ doesn't allow psuedonyms. Makes it a much higher class establishment. Rob Malda and I are in each others circles, what could be better?
If G+ was the only social network / web bloggy thing on the internet, if 1% of the population violently disliked a policy of theirs, I guess that would be bad. But they aren't.
Lets visit a paradise of psudonyms, how about my local, not dead yet, newspaper web site. The comments sections are nothing but a dead wasteland of political extremist astroturfers screaming the same corporate / party talking points at each other over and over, spammers trying to sell shoes (wtf?) and pills, and 4chan/goonsquad style shock trollers. Everyone else has been successfully repelled away. Seriously. No normal human beings use it because its a toxic waste dump.
Which brings up the obvious question that always has to be asked... who benefits? Say G+ allows 4chan /. zerohedge style psudeonyms. Who benefits? Mostly I suppose any competitor, since the users of G+ will be strongly repelled. Also PR astroturfing firms will benefit. Who else makes more money? Hmm.
Lets say G+ allows the rabble in, and the rabble repels everyone as they always do. Then whats the point? Who will ye annointed ones, ye whistle-blowers and ye wikileakers tell their important secrets to? The spammer selling dick pills? The political party talking point autopost-bot? No one's perl script will care what they post.
One thing I've noticed in debates on G+ about anonymity is the straw dog always trotted out that unless G+ allows fake names, we'll never have whistleblowers and anonymous leaks. All of which happened before G+ was invented, so presumably could continue to happen after. Furthermore, all the people trotting out that straw dog have NEVER added anything positive to the ecosystem in general or that argument in specific other than "nah nah naah naa na, you don't know who I am, ha ha ha". Anyone trotting out that straw dog better be carrying a wikileaks-grade release, or their just annoying poseurs at best.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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.
I disagree. If I know which block you live in and I know your age, then I can make some pretty good guesses as to who you are. E.g. if I know that Mr X lives between 150 and 200 Main Street, is 28 years old born on the 12th of July, and has Steve Jobs, Perez Hilton and the local Pop DJ in his circle of "friends", then I know it's most likely the douchebag across the street that drives the Toyota Prius and listens to Lady Gaga from his iPad2 at a high volume, who happened to have a big gathering in his backyard a couple of weekends ago. Gawd, that guy drives me nuts.
Add to PC and DOB certain things like hobbies, medical conditions, membership (Shriners, sports team, etc), then you can build a pretty good picture of who the person most likely is.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
I "suffer" from quite a common first/last name combination. People who google my name get several thousands of hits - only a few of which trace back to me. (And you'd be hard-pressed to know which few, unless you knew a lot about me, personally). In fact on FB by using my real name I just merge into the crowd of others with that name, or variants of it.
So it seems to me that in order to preserve anonymity on G+, all people have to do is make sure that their real name is a very popular one. It might make it a pain for your friends to find you - although if they really ARE friends, you'll have shown them where you're hiding - but it has a lot of advantages, too.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
But if you know my real name you will have ultimate power over me.
-- Rumple********
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).
... surely all of this is pretty much irrelevant. Google has said they're working on it (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-20/google-for-business-is-on-the-way-012111.php) so then, unless there really is a Mr. Coca Cola, or Senor Adi Das, things should happen just as they do on Facebook. Of course, making that work in the Circles paradigm might be rather fun.
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
Don't use a SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE. Or don't use the goddamn internet in general, for that matter.
Mined data isn't nearly as useful or marketable without real names to attach to it. I suspect Google receives a hefty chunk of change from multiple governments for all the data they collect and will collect.
What about allowing people to have a display name (that by default is the same as the real name), and the option of exposing the real name to selected circles?
Ask me about repetitive DNA
People who care so much about privacy can form their own social network. There is no one stopping them from doing it. Why do they insist Google do it when they could not do it? Money. People who care about privacy don't spend enough money, there are not enough of them, not yet anyway. So there is the opportunity for you folks complaining about the erosion of privacy. Start a decent social networking portal with enough safe guards. And wait. If there is a big scandal and suddenly there is a mad rush to protect their privacy, you will be at the right place and make some money. If that day never comes to pass, well, you learned a valuable lesson.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Actually, Google suspended the G+ accounts, and non-related Google services (Gmail, etc) were left intact and operable by the suspended user.
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...
What is the point of this? It's not like we're talking about a financial institution having a bad privacy policy. We're talking about a social network. Fact is, if you're worried so much about privacy that you need to change your name, then you probably shouldn't use the service. It's not like you are being forced to do so. C'mon guys, let's not waste our time. Slashdot is in danger of leaving my RSS list at this point.
I would like to have a different name for each circle. For my music friends I am Guitar Smasher and for my business colleagues my real name, etc. That with be a real win over Facebook.
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
Yeah, you can control what anyone is allowed to see. I think the least amount of info you can make public are your real name and gender. That's it. Everything else, you can hide and control on a per-circle or per-person basis. I think that's a more than adequate compromise. Yes, you have to use your real name, but if you're so inclined, you can make it so the most anyone can find out about you is that you have a G+ account, which doesn't mean much of anything in and of itself.
You can also make it so you don't appear in searches, which would make it more difficult for anyone to find you if they don't know the direct link to your profile or know someone who has you in a circle.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I have a friend whose account was disabled Friday because Google claimed that his name wasn't real. Granted, he does have something of an odd name, but it's his completely legitimate legally given name. He had to resort to creating a Livejournal entry and asking friends to comment on it saying they've known him for a long time and he's always used that name. Supposedly Google will take this testimony into account in these cases.
The kicker? He works for Google. I'm not sure if the account has been re-enabled at this point or not.
Our new overlords. Some asshole programmer in a cube in Mountain View making arbitrary decisions about what names are "real".
so if anything it's our JOB to try to change G+, not to "love it or leave it".
Why the hell you post as vlm and not your real name.
Its not my birth name, but brace yourself to LOL. Lets just say its like saying those guys using their full ham radio callsign as their account name are "anonymous". Um no not really. I suppose I could have used my full callsign instead when I signed up... Regardless pseudonymity on /. works on /. for reasons listed below.
Also whats your opinion about Anonymous Cowards, you think is good that a site have a full anonymity option?
I enjoy zerohedge and 4chan for the trolling itself... I guess G+ admins don't want to turn into a copy of /b/ and that is perfectly OK. If I really wanted G+ to be 4chan's /b/ then ... I'd go to freaking 4chan... not complain about the completely different social mores of G+. Also I think people expect G+ to be "useful" unlike the (pleasant) waste of time that is 4chan and zerohedge.
If its got a scoring and filtering option, which /. has, then anonymity works. Also if there's a reason not to burn accounts, then yes; I'm vaguely proud of my 5 digit UID and I'm not going to burn it by posting spam and toasting my account. If I toast my account its going to be because I'm an idiot, not for trolling. Hmm maybe theres some overlap in that Venn diagram. The /. achievement system is (sorry guys) lame, but if it was real I would not risk burning it either, especially if people could filter on (checkmark to only see 'once got a +5 post') I wish /. let us view filter on Karma too.
G+ has none of the above. Turns out anonymity doesn't "work" if you have none of the above. Whoops.... I guess G+ can't have anonymity until it adds those features.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
How can you miss using Abby Normal?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The problem is when someone else makes the choice to share your information instead of yourself. I have an unlisted number and have placed myself on many do-not-call/cold call lists, but that doesn't mean I can't personally hand my card to someone that I wish to have my number. People should be able to use G+ as they wish, including without including their real name. Perhaps you're comfortable with having your real name, but not your zip code displayed. Perhaps I'm the reverse. Perhaps I want a G+ identity that has nothing to do with my real world identity, which in turn I use to connect with others online without having to volunteer my meatspace information. What if we're friends in real life and want me to be in your circle, but knowing and respecting my online privacy belief, is it really a problem to have Guy McGuyerton in your circle instead of my real name? We still get the benefit of sending information back and forth, but without a 3rd party able to snoop in - you know that Guy is really Steve from down the street, and he's RSVPed to your party, while Steve takes comfort in knowing that (barring a breech of trust), though YOU know his ID, those on the outside don't.
Social networking can be done privately and with each person volunteering the amount of information they feel comfortable including. However, when a service doesn't give you a choice on certain options because it makes you a less valuable "product" for their business plan, that generates a conflict of interest. Social networks have the privacy holes they do because of greed, not because they are somehow inexorably linked to social networking as a concept. Users should have absolute control of what they wish to volunteer to a given social network.
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.
A lot of hyperbole. Yada, yada, yada....
It could be asserted that any additional information corresponds to a decrease in privacy. Obviously. People get paid for this?
The postal code is meaningless without a name associated with it? A security professional said this?
Great quote at the beginning:
Why would so many people flock to Google+? The one thing almost everyone that I know references is privacy and control, or at least the hope that it might achieve that end.
Yeah, that's how a security guy would perceive it.
The rantings of a really, really pissed off guy.
Correct. G+ isn't really a service yet. It's in field testing. Not even officially a beta yet. It's alpha quality stuff. Great alpha quality, but alpha. So, what do you do in field testing? Test the hell out of it, and report problems. One of the problems is, the need for some degree of anonymity. My real, legal name has only ever been put "on the web", one time, accidentally, before I wised up a little bit. I did my best to "fix" that mistake, and it seems to have worked. If Google requires me to use my full legal name, then I'll not be using Google anymore. I'm not sacrificing whatever level of anonymity I still enjoy, for the "privilege" of "testing" a new service.
"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
I thought the point of social networks was to have a place to be social. In the real world, being yourself while being social is not necessarily the norm.
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. ~Oscar Wilde
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
If you are interested in reporting problems, then there is a "Send Feedback" system visible at all times while you are using G+. If you don't want to sign up to use it, but still want to provide feedback, their address is 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, and sending an anonymous letter through the postal system is as easy as it always has been.
You're kinda missing the point. I'm testing G+ for Google, free of charge. I'm providing a service, in exchange for the privilege of using their alpha quality service. I do provide feedback. The question I addressed here is, whether a beta tester, or anyone else for that matter, has the right to voice an opinion. Even opinions on such esoteric things as the "Terms of Service".
There is one term in those TOS that I will not abide by. Others feel the same. We are telling Google that. Google can't really afford to delete the accounts of ALL of us - as a group, we are an important part of the way they do business.
"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
..that I will not use. Especially now.
I'm not missing the point at all. I expressly told you exactly how you can best do what you state you are wanting to do. Using the tools they have provided for you to provide feedback is likely far more effective than posting a comment on /. or writing a blog because it gets the message directly to the people who have the ability to make changes as opposed to relying on your comment or blog being noticed indirectly.
So if you don't like it... don't use it?
Did I miss some news blurb that Google+ is now required for usage by all citizens of earth now?
Just another ignorant American.
Being private... means that you have control over who can access what of your personal data
I consider my name to be amongst the most personal of data about me, and just about the only bit that I can literally change at will. Here in the UK at least, you're at liberty to use whatever name you choose, and do not have to go through any official process to change it. Yes, some things (like getting a passport) are a hell of a lot easier if you do change it officially, but even that can be done online for a nominal fee from any of a large number of competing services.
Besides which, my girlfriend is in the process of building a business for herself. To that end, she uses a pseudonym - her real first name, but a more "appropriate" last name (she makes retro clothing). She has business cards and flyers printed, and has a blog, Twitter account, Facebook account, eBay store, etc, in that name; but cannot have a G+ account using it. Why not? Why should she be forced to explain to people that yes, she *is* her despite the different name?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I see a schism of people forming: the "real names are good!" and the "nooo! my privacy!". The privacy people are really complaining that they are losing anonymity.
How I see it is people are fed up with people trolling/spamming and the trolls/spammers can stay anonymous so that they feel safe.
The people that think they are losing privacy really mean they are losing their anonymity, a psychological protective layer. When you get a message saying, "Mister Fancypants99, you need to grow up," it doesn't have the same psychological impact as "Kevin Smith, you need to grow up." When anonymous and if you make too many enemies, you can just destroy your account and make a new identity for yourself.
I really wish they would take this one step further and require a verification by phone and limiting the number of accounts that number can make in a certain period of time. This would really cut down on the Kevin Smiths of the world that just want to troll people.
I'm not saying people that want to be anonymous are trolls but I am saying it makes being a troll a lot easier.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
And sell it to the government and maybe the **AA.
Does anyone here dislike "small town pettiness" where they sit in places like the hair salon and chitter about all the gossip? These "social" services are nuclear gossip exchanges. "Ooh, did you know, ThisPerson got drunk last night? Let's post that info on our social network and make sure it comes up forever in any search of the person's name forever!"
Meanwhile the govt gets all this crispy data for their Big Brother initiatives.
"ThatPerson didn't like John Boehner's budget! Get him!"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Why is G+ better than Facebook? Circles.
Why would you want circles? Because there stuff you want to share with some of your friends but not others.
By implementing circles they admit to this.
So what about public statements? I make software reviews, (and restaurant reviews and movie reviews). I make comments on slashdot, and the minecraft forums, and I promote the games I like on twitter. I make all sort of public statements that I don't necessarily want linked together.
"But you can't be public AND private at the same time!" Sure I can, I just make a new name. That's what me and almost everybody on the Internet does.
So if you want to use G+ in a public way and still keep your "public circles" separated, you will create different profiles. A lot of people will. But thanks to the "real name"[1] policy, if I want to keep "requiem18th"'s circle from my family or work profile, the only choice I have is to create a profile named "John Smith" and add requiem18th as the main alias.
Why not skip the last part? In fact everybody should do it like this until G+ drops it's "real name" policy.
[1] By some abstract definition of "real name" I'm not aware of.
PS: Facebook, regardless of its real name policy, has a shit-load of nicknamed profiles, I'm sure they wouldn't see the end of it if they got anal with that policy now as they did at first.
But... the future refused to change.
Mostly the same here - though I carefully left a somewhat convoluted path to my real name to reduce the urge for the intensely curious types getting daydreams of being a hacker. I treat it like an intelligence test - it blocks the "Gossiping Google-Monkeys" while anyone really serious will figure it out.
This is the second service pushing the "real name" thing - it's more subtle brainwashing towards the "Nothing to Hide" crowd.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Okay, I'll block the mods and assume you are not flamebaiting. Did you seriously just ask "what's the harm of placing your real name online", followed with "not being stupid about your privacy?"
Really?!
Then email me your real name and address. I'll politely show you the horrors yet allow you an escape route afterwards.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Send them to me too, though I won't necessarily be polite and I can't promise an escape route.
But trust me.
Carol vs. Ghost
Join the Diaspora
Here's a good place to get started.
Open source, distributed social networking. Evil not included.
WALSTIB!
People should be able to use G+ as they wish, including without including their real name.
As people has commented in this thread previously, Anonymity significantly reduces the quality of social interaction. If Google would allow that I'm not sure I would like to use G+ anymore. It would loose it's purpose for me which is to interact with people that publicly identifies themselves in real-life.
However, when a service doesn't give you a choice on certain options because it makes you a less valuable "product" for their business plan, that generates a conflict of interest.
You are right, but you missed the point that it also makes it a less valuable "product" for me. If you want to interact with me via G+ I want to know your name. For slashdot, I'm fine with psedonymity although I sometimes wonder if allowing Social Network connected comments would further improve the discussion quality.
Users should have absolute control of what they wish to volunteer to a given social network.
They have. They can always choose to leave.
One thing they're missing is that in the vast majority of cases, a zip code and birth date is enough info to uniquely identify a person. While I dislike google's policy of real names only, getting rid of that won't make you anonymous. There is still likely plenty of info associated with your profile that could be uniquely matched to you if somebody was inclined to look.
Why should she be forced to explain to people that yes, she *is* her despite the different name?
Because she chooses to interact with them trough G+. Sounds like an edge case where people could have more than one "real" name. If this was a common problem Google would simply implement the ability to have multiple real names. The issue here though (what this debate is about) is that the Google have rules that prevent psedonymity... which me and many other G+ users believe is a good thing.
He seems legit then. I'm pretty skeptical against any articles and statements that slams any specific service or companies since the FB smear campaign against Google was revealed. Makes me wonder how many that was *not* revealed.
You completely missed his point. He was pointing out that if the only piece of personal information someone can track down is the person's name, it doesn't do them much good. They could find out the same information, in fact more information, by simply looking in the phone book. Now, if you are silly enough to list every piece of information about yourself, and make it all public, then you definitely have a problem on your hands.
Sending you an email with his real name and address is exactly the type of action he was describing as "being stupid about privacy", ergo, he won't do it as he clearly understands that it is stupid.
I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that there's an 87% chance that your gender+birthdate+postalcode is unique... So, yeah, knowing your postalcode and birthdate gets you a lot without knowing your name.
I'm not surprised that Google wants people to use actual account names. It still doesn't have to be your real name, you can always create another google account after all! So the title is misleading. What Google is doing is not allowing people to trivially create dozens or hundreds of pseudonyms from one convenient account
The pseudonym mechanic completely destroyed Yahoo's message boards. And I mean completely. The abuse is so high that the value of the boards is gone. They're worthless now. Google is taking that lesson to heart, hopefully.
-Matt
"taking out other Google services in the process"
I keep seeing comments left like this, but they're always vague. All the actual stories I've read of people having the G+ account suspended say all their other google services were NOT affected. Do you have any actual report of other google services being suspended as well, or are you just repeating something you think you heard someone else say?
sig? uhh, umm, ok
"What they seemed to have missed is that the very foundation of privacy is identity."
They didn't miss it at all. The value of their social network comes from their ability to sell its information to advertisers. The more closely the social network resembles reality, the higher the value. Simply look at myspace for an example of low-quality social network from a general advertising perspective. Nobody uses their real names, a large percentage of "friends" are internet-only "friends" (not representing in-person relationships, which have much higher value to advertisers), and the overall culture of the site is ugly and spammy. Google already has orkut, and they are doing everything in their power not to create another one.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
You completely missed his point. He was pointing out that if the only piece of personal information someone can track down is the person's name, it doesn't do them much good.
Exactly. Thank you!
Bow before me, for I am root.
I haven't played with G+ yet; is there a way to make your profile non-searchable? I know at least one person who uses a pseudonym on Facebook specifically to avoid stalker-ish folks from their past. There's no real subterfuge there; everyone who's "friends" with her knows who she is, but the fake name makes it harder for a casual potential stalker/troublemaker to find her profile.
You missed mine too.
So how about you also give me your name. I asked for the address because I am lazy.
The person's name unlocks every other piece of info about someone, which was *my* point.
"If all I have is your name, what can I do" right? So therefore there's no problem with you sending it to me right? After all, you've got Nothing To Hide, right?
The point is that when other people get hold of your name, it floats into blogs etc which will then never go away.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If its got a scoring and filtering option, which /. has, then anonymity works. Also if there's a reason not to burn accounts, then yes; {...}. The /. achievement system is (sorry guys) lame, but if it was real I would not risk burning it either, especially if people could filter on (checkmark to only see 'once got a +5 post') {...}
G+ has none of the above. Turns out anonymity doesn't "work" if you have none of the above. Whoops.... I guess G+ can't have anonymity until it adds those features.
Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!
IMHO, this is exactly what Google+ needs to be a viable alternative to FB. Of course, that would mean giving up the chance to associate browser and search histories with IRL people instead of just IP addresses...so no, it probably won't happen.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
You have my name, oh noes!
What can you get out of the phone directory other than a telephone number? And even then you can now get free phone numbers from virtual number providers and supply that to a telephone directory under any name you want.
Many of us are actually listed under telephone numbers that don't give our real names... it's called the name of your business. Some people have stage names. Others may be escaping from an abusive ex-husband or be involved in a controversial civil rights group.
Also: In real life we dress one way to go down to the butchers, and maybe have one manner of speaking, then cast a totally different image of ourselves in dressing up and the way we speak when we go to the opera. We maintain a consistent facade because we've portioned off our lives in certain ways. Having multiple identities online, including one or more 'fake', is just the way many project this real life idiosyncrasy into the virtual world.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
If you wish to hide then go back to myspace! Nobody will find you there!
If you don't like it, don't use it.
I don't. and damn, life hasn't changed for me.
Be seeing you...
The difference is that the phone listing doesn't know anything other than your phone number and maybe your address. How hard is it to understand that a comprehensive big brother database such as the one Google is on its way to building is a much bigger deal than a name2telephone lookup service? In both cases, you start with a name. But you either end up with 1) a telephone number, or 2) a substantial financial, historical, and psychological profile of the person.
I just tried to create google plus account and they won't continue unless they either: send me an SMS or call my mobile phone. And all mobile phones are registered to person here in Russia. It does not matter what online name the profile has, it's enough to tell the police mobile phone number and they know exactly where to go to beat the shit out of somebody with dfferent political views... Of couse it's extremely easy and cheap to buy anonymous SIM card and an old used phone (to avoid leaving my personal communicator's IMEI in cellular tower's logs). I think I'm going to do that just to have a spare identity.