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.

Comments

Account verification

[CharlyFoxtrot]

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.

Re:Account verification

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Why that's communist! We would never do that here!

Why do you hate America?

Re:Account verification

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Why do you hate America?

Because of your freedoms, obviously ;-)

Re:Account verification

[Deatzo Seol]

Well, no, it's compulsory for everybody... on the other hand, and I know this sounds unbelievable, the government generally respects the people's privacy...

Re:Account verification

[LordLimecat]

There are a large, large number of government programs that one could ask "what is it, precisely you dont like about it?" I have, in fact, been asked this about the Obamacare plan.

The simple, easy answer to most of these questions is as follows:
A) Most of these cases are NOT the federal government's role, according to the documents (or contracts, if you will) that grant our government its authority
B) This is because a large, expansive, powerful central government was originally regarded as a bad thing
C) Which is because people are not inherently good, but inherently selfish, and / or arrogant, and / or corruptible. The best leaders are the ones who understand that they are not to be trusted with excessive power.

A good policy is to regard any law that is to be passed as being a negative, and then to have to justify its passage. Each law you pass will by its nature remove some freedom from its citizen, and should only be done if there is some much greater pressing need.

Personally, I am on the fence about an ID system. I recognize a need for enforcement to be able to do their job; but at the same time I am not sure there is sufficient justification for imposing such a system on a national level, particularly given that the design of the USA seems to be, from everything I have read, to have been a coalition of independently governed states with a federal arm that performed ONLY those roles that the states could not.

Re:Account verification

[itsdapead]

What is it you don't like about it?

I've never understood the theoretical problem, and can only assume that the opponents of ID cards in principle must be people who:

• Don't drive a car
• Never leave the country
• Look old enough to buy alcohol
• Never take out loans, open bank accounts, savings accounts, mobile phone contracts...

...all of which currently require ID, and in many cases have to resort to silly, ad-hoc ID checks such as abusing passports/driving licenses for purposes other than travel/driving, asking for utility bills etc. A properly designed universal ID system with modern technology would be much less intrusive than these by only letting bartenders/banks/phone companies check the precise information that they needed (e.g. is this person over 18? Y/N?)

If the cops stopped you, they could swipe your card on the spot and just see your photograph (not even your name) and record a one-time code. Then, later, they can go and explain to a magistrate why they need to access your details. Its not as if a cop can't find an excuse to stop & search you anyway if they feel so inclined - and when they do that they might feel obliged to charge you with something to justify themselves. Having ID cards doesn't mean you have to give the police carte blanche... and should the fascists win an election, or stage a coup, its going to take them all of a week to issue "papers" (and until then woe betide anybody who goes out without a utility bill, driving license or birth certificate).

No, the real practical problem for me is that this is a Large IT Project and if there's one thing that both governments and Big Industry are congenitally incapable of doing it is organizing a Large IT Project. I think that, while they just about comprehend that you can't sign up a contractor to build a tunnel under the Bristol channel and two-thirds of the way through decide that you want a bridge over the English Channel instead, they haven't quite managed to extend that logic to anything involving computers. So the odds are that we'd all have to pay huge fees for our ID cards, have huge difficulty getting any mistakes or abuse corrected, the encryption would be cracked within a week and that the entire database of personal information would turn up on Wikileaks within 24 hours of the launch.

Also, the now defunct ID card scheme was going to solve the problems of illegal immigration, terrorism, crime and halitosis, but making it possible to open a bank account without presenting a gas bill and a birth certificate was never mentioned.

Summary of what he did

[billstewart]

• 0 - Gary Walker's a real person with a non-unique name on Google+. Here's what he did:
• 1 - Made a Google+ account with his real name, some bogus information, and occasional cat pictures. - Worked
• 2a - Had three friends report it as a "Fake Profile" - No Response
• 2b - As the real Gary Walker, reported the new profile as "Impersonation".
• 2b.1 - Google+ requires a copy of a government ID if you report an account as "Impersonation". He used a really bad fake driver's license. - Worked!
• 2b.2 - Google+ informed him it was blocking the new profile, and also informed the new profile it was blocked. Took about 2 hours - Worked!
• 2c - As the new Gary Walker, requested reinstatement, using an even worse fake driver's license - Worked!
• 3 - Wrote up results - Attracted Blog traffic and comments - Worked!
• 4 - ....
• 5 - PROFIT!!

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!

Re:How about

[interkin3tic]

It's not just bash google day, of course. A short list of companies that get bashed a lot on slashdot:

Apple
Google
Facebook
MS
Sony
Steam
Oracle
Canonical
Nokia
Motorola
Activision
Comcast
EA

Companies that receive very little hate on slashdot:

Samsung I guess?
Some indie game makers
Appleseed, diaspora, and a bunch of other social networking sites you've probably never heard of
Any company that doesn't actually make anything (except for patent trolls, who we also hate)

Slashdot: news for tech and software hipsters.

Hey. What say you warn people next time...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

DON'T CLICK on that 419 eater link at work!

[IonOtter]

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.

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites?

[unrtst]

My last.* is taken
My first-last.* is taken
My firstlast.* is taken
as is firstmiddlelast.*, first-middle-last.*, Flast.*, F-last.*, FMlast.*, F-M-last.*, first-L.*, firstL.*, as well as all of those with my shortened version of my first name (think "steve" instead of "steven").

Granted, the ".*" is a slight exaggeration, but * includes com, net, and org, and many others for most of those.
It's also hard as hell to find me on any social site unless you know my email or some other more specific information.

AND, I just tried creating a temp account on yahoo and found out the reverse of my last name, reversed lastfirst, and reversed firstlast are all taken as well (ex. htims, htimsnhoj, nhojhtims) as are most of those reversed name domains! WTF!

If I could get my "firstlast.com", I'd gladly give out subdomains to others with my name.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers

[Alaska Jack]

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

You don't get out much, do you?

[brokeninside]

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.

Re:You don't get out much, do you?

[Seumas]

Misleading. You'll note that the man was arrested on minor charges; not failure to present identification. You are not required to carry or provide identification in America unless you are driving a vehicle or flying a commercial airline. A few municipalities have enacted very controversial and constitutionally grey laws that require you to identify yourself if an officer believes you are engaging in a criminal activity and you are of course always required to provide identification if you have been *arrested*.

Now, can an overzealous cop say "you were sitting on this park bench reading a book and you refused to provide me with your papers when I asked you for them" and decide to arrest you on that alone? Sure. A cop can also decide that you being a bit mouthy is justification to hit you in the head with a baton or taze you. That doesn't make it a legal action on the cop's part. That's what the legal system is for (never *ever* fight or debate with an officer, even if your rights are being violated. Just shot the fuck up and deal with that when you speak with a lawyer so you don't make things worse for yourself).

But, what they can do and what is legal and right is not the same thing.

http://flexyourrights.org/faq/When_do_I_have_to_show_ID

Re:Why do people give a fuck about these sites?

[z0idberg]

Have you tried FML.* ?

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers

[Alaska Jack]

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

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers

[Alaska Jack]

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

Moral of the story

[Compaqt]

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."

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers

[artor3]

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.

Re:Americans are a free people: No Identity papers

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:Wow. Slashdot has really changed.

[Altrag]

Effectively, it removes privacy in the long term. Once its been around long enough that it stops being a "convenience" and starts being a "requirement" that you have some form of ID, you can then be tracked with relative ease.

And that's generally considered a bad thing. The old "nothing to hide" argument against unrestricted privacy invasion is stupid -- everyone has something that they'll eventually need to hide from someone else. Whether its a religious belief, their political preferences, their porn surfing habits, or yes, criminal behavior. You a democrat? Wouldn't the republicans like to know. You a republican? Wouldn't the democrats like to know.

What I don't understand is how anyone thinks that this doesn't already exist? Between federal and state governments, most people have at least 2 cards (SSN and driver's license). Military issues their own ID as well. Add in passports, credit cards, debit cards, bank accounts, mortgage records, loyalty program cards, club membership cards, etc and your average person probably has over a dozen records in both public and private databases for which they intentionally carry around their ID card, and at least a couple are (almost) to the level of "required" in order to operate in today's society.

What we don't have (that I know of!) is any sort of centralized database which records all information related to an individual. Each database is maintained seperately and anyone trying to put together a full profile of a person would need to contact multiple database operators.

Which is pretty irrelevant when you think about it. Having a single shared key might make such searches slightly easier (don't have to look through 8 dozen "John Smith" entries to find the one you're looking for) but it doesn't strictly imply that the databases themselves have to be linked. In the US they probably would be (why go to the effort if you can't invade peoples' privacy?) but there's no technical reason for that to be the case.

In order to do such a thing in a private way you would need to (minimally, I'm sure I haven't thought it through completely!):

- Keep the individual databases seperate. They can share a key (ie: your ID number) but they shouldn't be able to share any other data beyond that without your authorization (already questionable anyways but still...)

- Allow people to obtain a new key that cannot be traced back to your old key (except perhaps a tightly controlled database that can only be accessed with a warrant for criminal investigations.. again this is already questionable with warrantless wiretapping and other such privacy-destroying laws becoming more common).