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."

12 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Kinda walked into that one by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

    1. Re:Kinda walked into that one by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it isn't really 'your' account. You merely signed up for a service created, implemented, and hosted by Google. You paid Google nothing for it and although I haven't read the Picasa TOS I suspect it contains some amount of favoritism toward Google, since Google wrote it.

      All of this internet service type stuff is very new, but even non-technical people need to be reminded that any digital sandcastles they might build on someone else's beach are subject to being washed away at any time without notice and regardless of the difficulty it might cause. All a person need do is sit down and read one single TOS in its entirety to understand that.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    2. Re:Kinda walked into that one by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did they rub them off?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  2. FUD article by Cheburator-2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:FUD article by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  3. Google is being dumb here by cronot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Not again ??!! by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:Not again ??!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:Huh? by Thantik · · Score: 5, Informative

    And then every purchased market app suddenly goes byebye...

  7. Re:Not again ??!! by trum4n · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. Re:Not again ??!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  9. Re:FALSE: Official Google response by mutube · · Score: 5, Informative

    A few days ago my account was suddenly suspended - with vague references to breaking T&Cs. I had done nothing new with the account bar signing up to Google+ and was using my real name for the profile. ALL my Google services were blocked (at the account level).

    I submitted a query and the following day the account was reinstated - again without explanation of what had happened or why. While that is obviously a 'good thing' the lack of explanation means I have no way of knowing if it will happen again.

    It is completely bass-ackwards for them to lock access to one service on the basis of your apparent - unproven, inexplained - indiscretions on another. It would be a simple situation to resolve - flagging the service as disabled not the user - if they wanted to.

    Stopped me recommending Google+ to anyone anyway. It now gets a "don't bother you might lose your account".