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 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
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.
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.
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
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).
Who is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you must use G+? By the way, doesn't facebook Terms also require you to use your real name as well?
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.
You needn't apologize for your opinion, you're as entitled to it to the next guy. But I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have an account associated with an actual identity to be able to report "jerkish" behavior. Suppose "Jerkface87" and "John Smith" were both being jerks. Presumably you could accuse either one.
But couldn't "Jerkface87" just re-register under a different name? Sure. But couldn't John Smith do so to? In fact, couldn't John Smith just come back as another "John Smith"? Or would one bad "John Smith" ruin it for everyone?
I am not a crackpot.
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...
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
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".
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