Slashdot Mirror
How Google Killing Accounts Can Leave Androids Orphaned
jfruhlinger writes "As we've heard in cases of pseudonym-users in Google+, or in the case of Dylan Marcheschi that went viral last week, Google can kill your account at any time — and since Google is keen on tying your account to its entire range of services, that means you could lose data stored everywhere from Gmail to Picasa. Blogger Dan Tynan examined one particular aspect of this problem — namely, the plight of someone who's been Google-executed and who uses an Android phone."
Really? Putting all your data in the hands of a third-party means they could arbitrarily shut you out for whatever reason they want. Film at 11.
From the article
"... found out why. A Google bot that automatically scans Picasa for illegal images flagged something Marcheschi had posted as child pornography. .....
It turns out that the image he posted, though admittedly disturbing, was not technically porn. In fact, he says his reason for posting the image – to a collection he curated called “The Evolution of Sex” -- was to make a point about how you can post images of minors being sexualized without breaking any laws. (Marcheschi says Google deleted the image, he has no other copy, and doesn’t remember where he found it on the InterWebs, so there’s no way to judge for yourself.)"
While I don't like the idea that google can delete your account, this is suspicious as anything to me. The fact that he also broke all traces of the image now kinda makes it suspicious to me. (Not to mention that its prolly copyright infringement too, but that's unrelated).
I think Facebook will end up benefiting from Google tying everything together under one umbrella. I can't speak for everyone, but I couldn't care less if my Facebook account got banned or closed. I primarily use it to socialize with some distant relatives and old classmates. It is not essential. If I lose my Facebook account it doesn't affect my email. Facebook doesn't track my Google searches.
Facebook may be a hated company, but at least they are relatively isolated.
It just doesn't make sense to put all your eggs in one basket. By using Google for everything you end up with a single point of failure.
Best-case scenario is that Google scares Facebook enough that Facebook improves their privacy controls and updates their friends lists to be more front-and-center like Google circles.
Google doesn't suspend Gmail and Picasa when it disables Google+ profile, only Google+ and unfortunately Google Reader gets suspended. And in case of Dylan - well, just don't put anything resembling child porno in Picasa, and you'd be ok.
So factory reset it and associate it with a different account. I do Android development and we do this as a matter of course to switch to different accounts. Am I missing something? What's the problem?
I don't like that my G+ profile shouts my real name everywhere too. So I was looking around in my profile, and guess what: There's a "Nickname" field in there - but the profile form explicitly says that it won't be shown in the profile. Why the hell are they doing that? Why have this field if it's not going to be used?
The dumb part is that Google could be fixing this problem in a much less disrupting way: Make the "Nickname" field actually useful, make it the default field shown for the public, or have the user setup if he wants the Nickname to be shown or his real name. Hell, if Google is so bent into real names, at least make the Nickname the field to be shown to the public, and the real name only to your friends / circles. What a waste.
Google keep claiming that locked G+ profiles don't block GMail. However, reports keep coming in - e.g. from the Guardian, this story. And a followup from Thursday - despite Bradley Horowitz claiming two days before that mail locks were not happening, even though they clearly were and still clearly are.
The message that's going out: Don't get a G+ account, or your email is at risk.
I wonder if anyone at Google ever thought their policy would lead to headlines in major general-interest newspapers.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I'm glad my iphone isn't controlled by some mega-company... ;)
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, backup your google docs, gmail while you can... 'coz believe it or not even though I do not have Google+ or Adsense etc in last 2 weeks I've came across "Account has been disabled" screen twice while logging into gmail though somehow after waiting for few minutes both the times i was able log into gmail. And now I'm taking gmail and docs back few times a day to a folder which is being synced with Skydrive.
Gmail : http://www.gmail-backup.com/
Google Docs: http://code.google.com/p/gdocbackup/downloads/list
The message that's going out: Don't get a G+ account, or your email is at risk.
Which is a silly message. The message should be: if you are going to use a third party to provide your email, and you actually care about being to use, then make sure that you have a contract with them that requires them to keep providing the service. If you use a free service that's subject to termination without notice at the whim of the provider, then don't be surprised if it's terminated without notice at the whim of the provider.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I've got a better one: DON'T LIE ABOUT YOUR IDENTITY. If you're afraid, get the hell off the internet. This is just like the real world. No place for pussies. I am ready to be modded troll for my beliefs.
Instead of calling it "Google execution," how about simply "excommunication"?
Google has explained that being banned only from G+ does not ban you from other services
MYTH: Not abiding by the Google+ common name policy can lead to wholesale suspension of one’s entire Google account.
When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don’t require a Google+ profile are not removed. Please help get the word out: if your Google+ Profile is suspended for not using a common name, you won't be able to use Google services that require a Google+ Profile, but you'll still be able to use Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Blogger, and so on. (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.)
I'm sorry, but Slashdot has determined that trum4n is not your real name and has therefore suspended your account.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
PS: Google said they werent blocking entire accounts just Buzz and Google+ a fact is confirmed by some Hong Kong users here
smartphones as well as social networks, in the immortal words of Richard Stallman, "you are the product, not the consumer." so kindly continue your farmville farming, twitter tweeting, foursquare check-ins and placement of those to whom you relate closest into magnificent target demographic circles. the sausage factory doors are to remain locked for a reason.
Google and Facebook have a shareholder responsibility to ensure their product is of the highest quality, you see. in terms of produce, what google is doing is the equivalent of removing rotted tomatoes from their sales cart. So long as you continue to perform normally and consume regularly, there will be no problems. Champion no unsanctioned social causes, boycott no sponsors product, and subvert not the model afforded to you.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It seems that no one took Google seriously when they labeled Google+ as a beta project. The thing is still under construction and people are complaining that it doesn't work perfectly. Gee, I wonder why.
I'm not into the social networking stuff so I haven't bothered trying to get an invite, but representatives from Google have stated that Google+ deactivation shouldn't deactivate Gmail and other services. This Marcheschi guy didn't get his G+ account banned, the article didn't even say whether he has one, he got his main Google account banned for posting questionable pictures in Picasa.
In fact, he says his reason for posting the image – to a collection he curated called “The Evolution of Sex” -- was to make a point about how you can post images of minors being sexualized without breaking any laws.
So he set out to get his account banned and it worked. Then he publicly griped about it because he's an attention whore. Nothing to see here.
Anyway, what type of sick fuck wants to show images of minors being sexualized, legal or not? Apparently Mr. Marcheschi is fairly computer illiterate considering he doesn't know where to find a picture that was on his computer at one point. Or maybe he just knows no one would defend him if he actually made it public. After all, how is an image of a child being sexualized not child porn?
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
I've actually wondered about this.
So what happens if I'm using a commercial/paid-for gmail account (or rather, in my case my own domain email hosted at gmail). Does it still get canned?
Slashdot isn't a Social Networking site about meeting people. It's a place to get harassed by trolls.
In the parts of the collections that don't get shown publicly, various museums have quite extensive numbers of Greek vases showing mature men and their teenage male lovers engaged in very graphic sexual acts, complete with erections all around.
A Classical Greek scholar published a book recently, using such vases to refute would-be revisionists who claim that the ancient Greeks were not actually gay, but just speaking in metaphors.