Slashdot Mirror
Google's 'ID Validation' Is a Joke, But Not Funny
An anonymous reader writes "I was curious about the whole profile reporting and ID validation process on Google+ so I decided to do a little experimental work to find out just what is involved. Answer: very little which could be called rigor." Tease: this story involves a form of I.D. only slightly less funny than the 409-eater with a passport in the name of James Tiberius Kirk.
Post To Not Be Banned!
...fixed that for you.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
an actual summary?
Why do people give a fuck about social networking web sites? There's nothing special about them. They're basically a less-efficient, less-private form of email or instant messaging most of the time. If you really need to share your photos or whatever other crap you need to share, create your own web site!
Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification in this way. Quick, painless.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Apparently you don't even need Real Photoshop to turn a McLovin' Hawai'i Driver's License into an adequate-quality fake ID for Google+ purposes. But SHHHHHH!! Don't Tell Them!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification in this way. Quick, painless.
Just the way that Mr. Hilter down the road wanted it.
And we all know that such systems are never broken.
Good luck with the illusion.
before enticing them into clicking on a link that's actually a 50-page pdf with (potentially underage) pornography and a photo of an open leg wound in it by mentioning Captain Kirk?
If you're at work, DO NOT CLICK on that link to 419eater!
It is funny, yes, but it has several pornographic and at least one medically disturbing/disgusting image.
Save it for viewing at home.
[End Of Line]
We in America, a free country, do not have identification papers. That is what sets us apart from totalitarian regimes. As for a driver's license, I did not have one until I was 33 years old, and I only need it when I am driving an automobile -- that is why it is called a driver's license. The only person who ever gets to see it, is a police officer and only if I am driving. There is no other legitimate need for anyone to see it, ever.
We are also a free country, there's no checkpoints in the streets.
I really don't get it, if I :
deal with the bank, I prove my identity with a debit card,
deal with the library, I prove my identity with a library card,
deal with traffic cops, I prove my identity with a driver's license,
and if I deal with the government, I prove my identity with an ID card.
What's the big deal ? I mean look what's on this thing and tell me what exactly about that is supposed to enslave me ?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
There are lots of good reasons but you don't have to agree with them as is your right. Personally I'm just fine using a photo ID to travel via commercial air transport, rent a car and hotel at will, qualify for credit lines as needed so as not to expose my own wealth to scanners and frauds - at home or abroad.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Psssh...dude, it's Google. They're not evil or anything...
---- Please be nice in case my Slashdot karma ~= my real life karma.
The deal is, that We The People delegate certain of our inalienable rights to Our Government; we do not need ANYTHING to prove that we exist as individuals. This is why we do not have nor do we ever need government identity papers -- Because We The People give the power to the government, not the other way around. Your mere existence is its own inalienable self-proof.
Unless of course you're an immigrant in Arizona. Then you need papers, or you end up in prison.
We in America, a free country, do not have identification papers.
Yes, America truly is the land of the free. And Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
In the past, you wouldn't have had to explain to the people here why allowing the government to require everyone to carry "papers" was a good idea in the short term, but a bad idea in the long term.
Now 80 percent of /. is just a bunch of script kiddies who think opposition to this kind of thing is rooted in religious crackpottery, or imaginary straw men who just think everything from Europe is communist.
I mean, gosh, Washington, Madison, Jefferson -- How could those guys not understand how much better life would be if we centralized all our power in one big government?
- aj
The deal is, that We The People delegate certain of our inalienable rights to Our Government; we do not need ANYTHING to prove that we exist as individuals. This is why we do not have nor do we ever need government identity papers -- Because We The People give the power to the government, not the other way around. Your mere existence is its own inalienable self-proof.
You don't need anything to prove you exist as individuals ? I think I know someone on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who'd disagree with that.
And it's not proof of existence, it's just identification. You'd think geeks of all people would understand the value of proper identification during interactions with service providers.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I guess I don't understand.
If you are here *legally*, then you already have papers -- and that goes for every state, not just Arizona.
If you are are *illegally*, then you have committed a crime. Why exactly should you not "end up in prison."?
Please clarify.
- aj
They should use Jean Luc Picard because everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Failure to identify yourself to a police officer can result in arrest and imprisonment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43867449/ns/us_news/t/mystery-prisoner-has-utah-jail-authorities-stumped/
But, aside from that, are you serious about Belgium being a totalitarian regime? That's just plain nuts.
He's talking about the fundamental relationship between a free people and their government.
You're talking about "the value of proper interactions with service providers."
He's talking principles.
You're talking expedience.
- aj
aboUt half Of the sling, return it to
I freely admit I'm a pragmatist. I can see the philosophical reasoning but I'll take the real benefits over the purely theoretical loss of dignity. There's no sense in ending up with half baked systems (like the US social security card, which from what I understand relies on security by obscurity) or basically outsourcing identification services to the DMV or worse, the banks (who famously even send credit card offers to dogs.)
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
The point is that people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times. If they lose them, or forget them at home, or whatever, then they get tossed in jail until they can present them. So the statement "Americans are a free people: No Identity papers" doesn't apply to Arizona. In Arizona, you're only free if you're white.
I guess I don't understand.
If you are here *legally*, then you already have papers -- and that goes for every state, not just Arizona.
If you are are *illegally*, then you have committed a crime. Why exactly should you not "end up in prison."?
Please clarify.
In America, citizens don't need to carry identification papers, nor do they need to justify brown skin with proof of legal residency. The original version of SB1070 required police to check the residency status of anyone they came into contact with when there was "reasonable suspicion" (what does that mean?) that the person might be here illegally, and to imprison that person (possibly a U.S. citizen!) if they could not immediately produce proof of legal residency. See the problem?
I don't think you've thought this through very well. Your reply does not seem to be based on fact.
(1) "people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times."
I've just been reading up on Arizona's SB 1070. It makes no mention whatsoever of "brown skin." The law seems to apply equally to all colors of immigrants. I.e., it certainly discriminates between nationals and foreigners, but does not seem to discriminate between *types* of foreigners.
Not trying to be disingenuous here. Arizona clearly has a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico, not from Romania. But that doesn't mean Arizonans don't like *Mexicans*; it just means they don't like *illegal immigration.*
(2) "'Americans are a free people: No Identity papers' doesn't apply to Arizona. In Arizona, you're only free if you're white."
This seems obviously false as well. The people you're referring to -- i.e., immigrants, whether legal or illegal -- *aren't Americans.* I certainly hope we treat non-Americans well, but whether we do or don't seems to have little bearing on whether Americans "are a free people."
- aj
What's the big deal ?
Have you forgotten what the occupation was like during WW-II?
Papers please!
Don't be ridiculous. You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant. The fact is that the law will be used against anyone with brown skin, and pretty much no one else.
As to your second point, anyone living long term in this country is an American. That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. That we take people from all over the world, mix the cultures together, and come out with one super culture (which we then sell back to the world). Perhaps you're thinking of native Americans -- confusing I know, given that some American Indians prefer to be known by that term.
Once you get right down to it, this law will be used to imprison legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens of Mexican ancestry. That may not be the intent, but it's an unacceptable side effect. Anyone who values freedom should oppose it. The fact that Republicans support it shows that all their talk of small government is a facade.
Yes I do. But it's not relevant -- the "original version" is not the one that passed. According to Wikipedia, the one that passed stated that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."
I don't particularly like this law. Could it be abused? Oh, totally. But it only came about because of the federal government's politically motivated failure to even try to live up to its obligations.
(ARTICLE IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.")
- aj
Mate, I'd give it a rest.
Americans really do not trust their governments. Maybe they have a good reason for it ... I dunno. It seems you are happy to trust your government and I am happy to trust mine. Oddly enough, your country and mine are high on a voter turnout list while USA has the lowest voter turnout on this wikipage.
Could be purely coincidental.
.
You seem to know a thing or two about ridiculousness.
(1) "You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant."
Are you aware that the law explicitly forbids arresting a person of *any* color on "suspicion of being an immigrant"?
(2) "Anyone living long term in this country is an American."
Not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't believe a long tenure of living here automatically grants you American citizenship, though of course you can apply. But what if you choose not to? What if you don't consider yourself an American? Are you one anyway? And do you mean living long-term here legally? Or illegally?
You are obviously speaking from the heart here, but that doesn't mean what you're saying makes any sense. Often, the opposite.
(3) "That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. "
I'm sorry, but this is objectively incorrect. What made this country great was the unprecedented application of liberal values: Freedom of speech, assembly, religion and thought; government of, by and for the people; equal justice under law; etc. In other words, all those things we call "liberty." How long people lived here had nothing to do with it. Simple racial diversity is a nice plus -- I like it as much as you do -- but even the most cursory review of history will show that it's hardly critical, or even necessary. Plenty of relatively homogenous civilizations have achieved great things.
(4) "Once you get right down to it, this law will be used to imprison legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens of Mexican ancestry."
ALL LAWS are eventually abused, by politicians, prosecutors or cops who are incompetent, ignorant, racist, etc. This law is no different. Victims of abuse are free to sue for giant settlements, just like in any other case of wrongful arrest/imprisonment.
- aj
Just to clarify, the original version of SB1070 did pass and was signed into law. It was amended a week later after the massive outcry began. The amendment was a very good idea: in particular, witnesses to or victims of a crime should not arrested for being here illegally just because they reported a crime. Otherwise, since we have millions of illegal immigrants here who aren't going away anytime soon, we'd be creating a class of perfect victims.
I agree that an arrest should entail a full identification, and that immigration laws should be enforced at that point. The "lawful stop" part is gray area, though. I worry about scenarios where a citizen with an accent or a "foreign" appearance could be legally stopped (which doesn't imply an actual crime occurred) and then imprisoned until they proved their identity; I think it's safe to assume that this would not happen to a white person with a standard American accent.
As for a driver's license, I did not have one until I was 33 years old, and I only need it when I am driving an automobile -- that is why it is called a driver's license. The only person who ever gets to see it, is a police officer and only if I am driving. There is no other legitimate need for anyone to see it, ever.
So what two forms of identification did you use to get any of the jobs you have had in your life?
Yes you can be an american citizen, natural born, and not have any form of universal identification. Though you would find your life to be very restricted. Just proving your citizenship would be down right impossible. In reality practically all US citizens have a Universal ID, and though you can not be required to reveal that ID, you can be restricted from service for not doing so.
GIMP works! Eat that, Photoshoppers.
"I was able to get an account with no particular infringing information or activity suspended by providing a GIMP'ed version of the McLovin ID from Superbad."
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
You tell that to IRS when they come and demand your ITIN.
It was the sae thing in most European countries before Axis occupation just the same.
In any case, "papers please" wasn't what made occupation nasty.
The law can expressly forbid it, but when it tells cops to arrest people who they suspect might be here illegally, the fact remains that the people most likely to be suspected are those with brown skin and Spanish accents. Which means that there are plenty of American citizens of Mexican descent who may very well be arrested, for no reason other than their appearance.
I don't see how you can take issue with the notion that permanent residents, be they natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, or legal immigrants, are Americans. They live in America. They take part in American culture. The fact that a few people may consider themselves to be not American is irrelevant -- you're moving the goalposts. You stated that immigrants aren't Americans and thus America could be considered a free country even if we treated them like shit (though to your credit, you did not suggest that we should).
And the notion that a statement of what makes America great could be "objectively" true or false is silly. But pedantry aside, America was built by immigrants. Most of our population is descended from immigrants. You can't claim that immigrants aren't real Americans, and then turn around and claim that their immigration status has "nothing to do with it" when talking about their contributions to the country. Either their immigration status is unimportant, in which case they are Americans, or it is important, in which case you have to at least admit that immigration is important to the country.
And finally, some laws are more open to abuse than others. We should not allow bad laws simply because there are other bad laws on the books. Point me at another law that is equally likely to result in unjust imprisonment, and I'll oppose that one too.
First of all, an immigrant is an American from the point he gets American citizenship. Apart from not being able to become a president, his rights and duties are the same as any American born on US soil.
Second, GPs case applies equally to natives. Suppose you are born in US to Mexican parents (who could even be citizens by the time of your birth). This makes you a natural born citizen of US. But aside from your birth certificate, you might not have any other document to prove this. If they stop you on the street in Arizona for "being suspiciously like an illegal immigrant", and you have no ID to present, they can lock you down until someone fetches them your birth cert.
This all is not just theory - there already were cases of US _citizens_ being detained because they couldn't readily prove their citizenship on the spot. JFGI.
FWIW it used to be the case in most US states that simply residing there fo a certain period of time (1 year for most, sometimes 6 months, sometimes 2 years) made one immediately eligible for citizenship. This began to change from 1870s on, and mostly disappeared by 1900 - largely due to "yellow peril" hysteria, anti-Catholic sentiments, and other forms of racism and religious intolerance.
just use obscure names of fictional characters. James T Kirk is good, also Jean Luc Picard. I once used Harry Tuttle for an account.
If you don't know who The Harry Tuttle character is, turn in your geek card immediately.
the reason why the driver license worked is because Google is using India and china to process our information. I have already had to deal with these guys on some other issues and was surprised to find out Google outsourced that much. What I find interesting is that Google is still using Chinese and that China is being allowed to learn that much about other nations. And by outsourcing this to foreign nations, you can see the results of this. I think that somebody from Mexico or Canada would do better and knowing about America than ppl who have never set foot here. At this time, I would not trust a CA from Google (or from any company like them such as MS, facebook, Apple, etc) then I would another home-brew CA.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why is there still no NSFW warning on this post? Get it sorted ffs.
Can someone please mark that link NSFW. Fucker.
It was entertaining but the funny thing is the I knew the two girls with the guy taking a leak in high school. Small world.
Many people voted in Belgium and still no parlement.
New things are always on the horizon
How can you delegate power to the government if you can't prove you exist? Or at least that you're American? Some kind of formal proof of existence and nationality is necessary for any large democracy to function.
No, but that occupation did make "papers please" very impopular.
Forget it, you're not going to win a rational argument with someone on a subject they can't be rational about. The indoctrination since childbirth to believe that no ID cards and easy access to weapons makes a free society runs too deep.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Then work! Slacker.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Slashdot is broken like an Ubuntu .10 beta release. Moderation details window is broken, the "get more posts" button on the user pages just up and disappeared, you still have to expand parent posts to see the moderation of child posts, it still has that bug where if you click on a link and the tip of the cursor doesn't land on the body of one of the letters it just expands/collapses parent posts, and mcgrew could tell you all about the broken journal features. But hey thanks for implementing the post governor that throttles the posts of contributing users with excellent karma, I wanted that feature for so long!
Hey if you mod this to +5 it'll get into the "hot posts" widget or whatever it's called and maybe someone will see it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Pornographic? The heads of the women are CLEARLY covering the genital regions of the men like straw hats covering any prime time "nude" sitcom scene.
Just to be sure, I'll ask what the women in HR think... brb...
I8-D
I expect Slashdot to not get me fired, thanks.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Yes, America truly is the land of the free. And Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
Well done there. I'm off to pass the time by playing a little solitaire.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
You should really mention that the 419 link gets NSFW towards the end.
People know me (love me or hate me) as "Skapare" (or any of the other dozen or so nicknames I use on other contexts). What good is it to put a profile on Google+ that is based on the name that was put on my birth certificate? Until Google lets people be who they want to be online, then Google+ is just as useless as Facebook.
Actually, I don't have an issue with Google verifying that I am who I say ... to them ... that I am. But my internet persona is not that. Here on Slashdot, who cares what my real life name is. But what they might, and some sites like Google+ and Facebook probably do, care about, is that I cannot abuse the system by putting up a profile or make comments that is/are completely inappropriate. I could put "Skapare" up on one of those sites and do some nasty stuff and get banned. And then I can put up another site and still do nasty stuff again, abusing the system until that one gets caught. And Google already knows that people not only do this, but even have an inventory of ready-made, not yet abused, personas that they can turn as soon as they need to. Spammers are doing this big time, for example.
It should not be a matter of whether my profile is fake or not. Impersonation can be an issue. But the focus should be on whether the person actually doing it, even though not named on the site(s) created, is abusing the system. If I were to run a social media site, I'd have a "three strikes" policy along with the policy of what is appropriate and inappropriate content. And once you ... the REAL you ... breaks the rules for the third time, you ... the REAL you ... get to create no new profiles for a year. After that, it's a "one strike and triple the time" policy. So the 4th violation nets a three year wait, and so on.
To effectively enforce that, this is where actual real life identification is required. That identification would be used to enforce any attempt to create new profiles during the ban. But the point is, having this identification does not, and should not, mean the profiles have to represent that real life identity. The real life identity would be kept confidential and secret from the posted profile. Law enforcement in the jurisdiction(s) operating in would have certain legal access to that, such as a court order. And other restrictions would also have to apply whether I like it or not, such as copyright violation takedowns (and repeating this would earn a ban, too). But, again, the whole idea of a pseudonym profile is what it is all about.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
That is all.
Oh, hey! Maybe we could issue IPV6 address ranges to everyone. Names and pseudonyms could just be domain-equivalents that decode to your subnet addresses.
USA government took away their right to have, rape and kill their slaves. They will never forget.