Slashdot Mirror
Google Launches Identity Verification Badge Scheme
theodp writes "CNET reports that rather than backing down after complaints about its insistence that Google+ user accounts be opened under a real name, Google has upped the ante and will pin 'verification badges' on users in an effort to assure people that 'the person you're adding to a circle is really who they claim to be.' In a Friday night post, Google employee Wen-Ai Yu explained that the Google+ team is initially 'focused on verifying public figures, celebrities, and people who have been added to a large number of Circles, but we're working on expanding this to more folks.'"
I hear they will also stick a chip in your ass so their street view cars can identify you!
I am the real Mark Zuckerberg.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
I'm getting to the point where I no longer like Google, nor it's products. Verify this, Google+ that, really now.
Custom hosting is on the cheap (for email), you can use something like DuckDuckGo for searches (not quite as good as some of the others I guess, but still not that bad), and Diaspora (if it ever really gets out) for your social networking goodness (goes with the custom hosting)...
Ultimately, the largest schlep is the migration from everything-gmail-oriented to everything @domain.name oriented (forums etc).
Consider someone saying "I demand the right to determine my own Real Name. It's mine after all and I reserve the right to change it. Not that I will, but I don't want some busybody in Google telling me I can't." How do you tell them that they don't determine their real name, and have no choice in the matter, save for deed poll.
John_Chalisque
...
Fuck you.
And your pluses.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
If, at the same time, they limit or stop disabling accounts that don't use a real name. Having a verification badge as "proof of real name" while allowing the use of unverified, pseudonymous identities (without the badge) is a perfectly fine idea.
Of course, if they're going to keep up the nonsense of entirely forbidding pseudonymous accounts, this means nothing.
I'm pretty sure that most of those verified big artists don't even use their facebook/g+ account, but let their marketing team manage it.
This sounds basically the same as the "Verified Account" badge on Twitter that's used to identify high-profile celebrities as not being impostors.
I guess the only real alternative for the future is insist on complete transparency from all authorities. Because they are going to have increasing "transparency", or rather, espionage, on everything the entire population does, whether or not we like it, approve of it, or legalize it. We can't really control the authorities, they simply state they don't collect any data on our activities, only on crime, but it is just not believable. Technology simply makes it possible and ever easier to collect, sort, exchange, etc, vast amounts of data. And we know well that data tends to go free all over the place, with little control. Our only alternative is to increasingly see more of what they are doing, too.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I know some thing for sure, I won't be signing up for google plus. You know damn well they aren't concerned with your privacy or protecting you, they just want to use the info you put on google plus to market to you. The more info, the better the marketing. never ever ever.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
Where does Google draw the line? Do they allow "vanity" pages like is common for bands, non-profit organizations, and small businesses? What about celebrities who don't use their own name. Ex: Can Miley Cyrus create a "Hannah Montana" page? How about "Hulk Hogan" or various rappers?
No, no it doesn't help me feel 'safe'. In fact, it does very much the opposite. It makes me feel like my friends are being forcibly outed. It makes me feel like they're being attacked for having unusual names. It makes me feel like they're being attacked for using the name I knew them by because that name is kind of unusual and doesn't show up on their driver's license.
I'm tempted to just drop anybody who signs up for this scheme in protest.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Currently there is nothing to stop me from making an account called "Larry Page", putting up a few images of him and then making outrageous claims about how Google plans to sacrifice puppies to Cthulhu.
This verfication thing is for celebrities and famous people- so if you find your favourite celebrity's page, you can be sure its really that celeb and not an 'unofficial fan page' or someone faking the name or whatever. Its a useful feature. Enough of the FUD.
This really bothers me. I am on G+, with my name, but only because I recently legally changed it. I couldn't have used it before because I have abusive family that were stalking me. They are terrible with "the internets" so a legal name change solved the basic google searches they were capable of, for finding me. However, if my legal name hadn't been changed, I couldn't use G+ and feel safe. I can't be the only one that has issues with putting their legal name out there.
Note how John Allsup turns someone saying something into a right without question or debate.
Google is not your personal slave John, they are a company that offers a service under certain terms. As long as those terms do not violate the laws of a country, they are free to have whatever terms they wish. What next, you are going to complain to Ubuntu for forcing you to use a password? Restricting your "identity" to a very narrow range of characters and character length? Do you think every website out there should allow the creation of an account with random squigles for the artist formerly known as prince?
----
Personally I think I can see where Google is trying to go with this. If you ever hosted a public forum you know just how bad a problem assholes are. Slashdot knows, remember the GNAA? There is a LOT of work going on behind the scenes to make sure that the posts you read are at least somewhat genuine, not just 100% pure trolls or advertising. That is reserved for certain editors posts.
If people were known by their real identity then suddenly one part of the greater internet fuckwad theory falls away. Suddenly everyone can see just what a pimple on the ass of humanity you really are when you troll a forum.
And it is nothing new. The best game servers are closed, only allowing access to people you really know. There are countless of closed websites where you have to have some kind of proof you really belong to that group before you can start taking part. The reason is simple, they want to know who you are so that you will behave.
That is all google wants I think. To create a social network that is not rampant with spam and scams. Where people can open a mail without having to a forensic analysis to determine if it isn't some nigerian in financial trouble.
Note that when email spam is being discussed plenty of people here suggest schemes to identify people who post in one way or another more accurately.
LinkedIn offers a social network where by its nature most people will use their real identity and gosh it is easy to spot spammers because they don't have an idenity. Guess Google wants more of that then Facebook and its deluge of crap.
And if you don't like it? Don't use it. So far I only seen people against it who want a company to produce a service they want custom made for them and damn the need for a business case. Go run your own social network without any need to identify at all. Happy spam cleaning.
I am interested to see where this goes. No, I don't use Google+ but then I don't use Facebook. Slashdot is good enough for me for all the in depth human interaction I need... it hasn't got any you say? Exactly how I like it. If you want google+ to be facebook, stay on facebook.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
We will 'purchase' an identity from a low jurisdiction country, like the Cayman Islands for a small price. The privacy package will come with artificial DNA linked to a new persona, a physical identity realistically rendered with the latest human image algorithms, and a voice-box culled from a combination of our favorite movie stars. Using such an Alias will be most beneficial to individual privacy, but won't help Google's bottom line. Increasingly, those who care about the integrity of their identity will have to be social by proxy!
seriously, if you want to know who is really is who is, verified accounts are a great plan, if you want to create a fake account, I don't see anyone stopping you. Open information has it's benefits as well as it's risks. I really like what youtube has done for being able to find obscure media that I'd never have access to under the old model of broadcast radio or TV, and in a way if advertisers weren't able to collect user data for marketing purposes, sites like youtube likely couldn't secure the financing to stream all that data for free. I much prefer the open flow of information to the old way of being limited to the the crappy middle of the road mass market media that is forced on us in the old broadcast models of advertising.
I wouldn't touch G+ with an infinitely long bargepole anyway but on top of that it shows their utter hypocrisy as regards real names...consider their rejection of South Korea's demand for use of real names (Real Name Verification Law)...the following link discusses this issue in more detail if you are interested: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2011/08/google_refuses.php
Sounds like they have grown too large and really don't care what their 'customers' think ( yes, i know their *true* customers are the companies who advertise, but you get my point ). Time to find another "service" provider.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
All the celebrities get a hefty monetary reward for giving up their privacy and now they expect us normal people to give it up for nothing (our only reward will be harassment).
Screw them...
While I deeply dislike the increasing trend(among Google, facebook, et. al.) to try to pin real IDs to users for fun and profit, I do think that there is one upside:
Historically, people have vastly overestimated the degree of anonymity they enjoy on the internet. IPs are pretty readily geolocated(and ISPs certainly don't have any trouble correlating them with CC details...), correlation of snippets of social networking information can be quite powerful, persistent tracking cookies and similar trickery do their job, and so forth.
In a way, then, the more visible, public, deployments of real-name requirements, automated facial recognition, etc. are really a public debut of what the pros have already had on virtually everybody who isn't a cypherpunk or a hermit for some time now. Hopefully public squeamishness will prove useful...
Google+ isn't vital to me at all, so I can simply back away from their logged-in services, merely using alts for YouTube accounts, etc.
I'm glad I found out how evil they have become before committing to their social/marketing network. they really did me a favour on this one. Thanks Google. Thanks and goodbye.
Suddenly everyone can see just what a pimple on the ass of humanity you really are when you troll a forum.
And people searching forums can see what a pimple you were six years ago and confuse this with your present personality. People who pay attention to dates won't recognize people who have repented from their F-wad ways.
The best game servers are closed, only allowing access to people you really know.
Then what should one use before gaining access to such a server? Must people play only single-player for months or years until they happen to discover servers through contacts outside the game? Because that's how Nintendo has handled online multiplayer in Animal Crossing: Wild World and Animal Crossing: City Folk: as an extension of the LAN-party capability of the GBA and DS over the Internet.
So, does everyone get a badge? They claim they have a real name policy, yet only those with real real names get badges.
Let's see... as a general plan, when you're trying to move in on someone else's turf, usually you have to offer something the other one doesn't, or you have to do it better, or more convenient. Why? Because everyone is already on the other thing that you try to oust, and you have to give them a good reason to come over to you. Twice so if the main reason for being there is that everyone else is.
Where exactly is Google+ better than Facebook? It's the same crap from a different company. That it happens to be Google doesn't make it better.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
People have the right to be anonymous, but organizations have the right to set up clubs where members have to identify themselves by name. If you don't like having to wear a name tag to use this golf course/club/video rental place/service, then don't use them. If you want the right to use any name you want, just use MySpace, or set up AnonymousFaceBook.com.
I'm part of the 50% of people who don't use Facebook. My life is just fine without it.
Does anyone actually use Google+? I signed up and then immediately stopped using it. Let them drop my account if they can't verify my identity. Google+ just isn't something I'm interested in, and if they want to enforce rules that I don't want to obey, I just won't use it. If they do that with my email, then I will just move to another service.
Where would I find online a good summary of the privacy vs. transparency issue? I know I'm for both. And I believe that complex issues contain contradictions; which our nature is to try to simplify into good or evil, or right and wrong.
From whois.net:
Registrant:
Dns Admin
Google Inc.
Please contact contact-admin@google.com 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View CA 94043
US
dns-admin@google.com +1.6502530000 Fax: +1.6506188571
I hate the 'real names' policy as much as anyone, but you can't find fault with this. This is just a way for a celebrity to prove that they're the real owner of an account, not an impostor. So you know that you're e-stalking the real Britney Spears, not just some guy in his mom's basement pretending to be her.
real name - fictitious name . i don't really care -- if i think you're a buthead or a doofus.. I'm gonna post it either way... If someone doesn't like that - they can drop me from the group/friend/circle --- whatever.
Honesty is always the best policy.
It sounds like this is an alternative to enforcement and now there can be accounts without the badge. Works for me.
Prominent blogger Violet Blue was kicked out because her real name is too fake sounding apparently. Adding insult to injury she was being harassed on G+ by people using their real names, who are still there. https://twitter.com/#!/violetblue/status/104827767031480320
Google has spent the past several years (a) getting millions of people dependent on their services first anonymously, then (b) with pseudonymous accounts that tie people's activities all together. People and companies use Google for searching (Log in to "personalize" your results; having Google keep your "search history" is great convenience, right?), emailing, storing sensitive documents, uploading photos, planning their movements, marking maps with locations both public and private, and probably a bunch of other things I don't even know about. And now Google has (c) created a competitor to Facebook and signed up millions of people in the first few weeks, which, once you attempt to use, they expect you to divulge a "legal" name --- and if they suspect the name you put in isn't, they want to see a government ID in order to allow you to continue using their services.
This is Google slowly building up, and now closing, a trap --- in order to snare what probably amounts to exabytes of personal information on real human individuals. We know it's the CIA funding Facebook. I wonder which intelligence/surveillance agency is funding Facebook's new "competitor."
Liberty in your lifetime
...years ago. Scott McNealy of Sun was the first person I can recall saying as much in public, and at the time I was angry at him for saying it.
But he was right. And he is even more right today.
Slashdot, Facebook, Google+, all of them will roll over if you post something that draws the attention of LEOs. You think your IP address can't be traced? Don't be naive. Everything you've ever done online can be cross-matched and correlated.
No, I don't like it either, but it isn't going to change. Ever.
a year on and I still haven't got my verified profile as a general member of the public.
As I point out occasionally, many, if not most, of the problems with web spam, phishing, etc. on the web are because Google doesn't verify the identity of the business behind a web site.
Businesses don't have any right to anonymity. Even in Europe. In the European Union, businesses come under the European Directive on Electronic Commerce.: "Member States shall ensure that the service provider (defined as "any natural or legal person providing an information society service" i.e. a web site) shall render easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and competent authorities, at least the following information: (a) the name of the service provider; (b) the geographic address at which the service provider is established ... (c) his electronic mail address...". The European Privacy Directive is only for individuals. If the search end of Google took a hard line on that, search would be much less spammy. Currently, they can't even keep totally fake business locations out of Google Places. Yes, "Illusory Laptop Repair is still in Google Places, right in the middle of the railroad crossing. So are so many phony business locations that it's been covered at length in the New York Times. Legitimate local businesses are screaming about this; customers try to find them and end up calling some outsourced lead-generation service, thinking it's a local company.
Google wants to use Google+ for "crowdsourcing" recommendations. They used to use Citysearch and Yelp for that, but those became too polluted with fake recommendations. The trouble with "crowdsourcing" is that crowds can be sourced. You can buy "likes", "recommendations", and "+1"s in bulk on any of the black hat SEO forums.
Recommendation systems only work in three situations - when the number of reviewers is huge compared to the number of items being reviewed, as with movies, when the reviewer is known to have bought the product, as with eBay and Amazon, and when the reviewer's identity is verified and their reputation is known. Google seems to be trying for #3. To make that work, they have to tighten the screws on "Google+" users. Tightening the screws on businesses would be more productive.
We don't need no stinkin' badges!
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Given that there is growing awareness and concern present in even the average person over Google and user information..
I think this may well represent the beginning of the end for Google. Of course in order to actually happen (the demise of Google) there needs to be another company stepping up.
If you actually read the announcement from Google and watch the short video you will see that this is not even available for the typical non-celebrity/-public figure users. Google is apparently working on making it available to all users, but nothing in the announcement suggests that this is more than a voluntary feature you can use if you want people adding you know that it's the real you and not somebody else. It seems like this would be a very useful feature indeed for public figure types.
There's no point in freaking out about this unless Google does make it mandatory. Even if it is made mandatory I'm not sure I'd freak out over it. I use my real name on Facebook and on Google Plus already, so my anonymity on these sites is not an issue. I prefer Google Plus over Facebook because (so far) I have much better control over my privacy, and this doesn't appear to be a privacy issue.
... in real life (yes, I'll spare you the "big blue room" sarcasm), how do you identify someone? With your senses. Your eyes. By looking at him. Your ears. By recognising his voice. Your hands, by touching him (lucky you if its a her and you're a him!). Your nose, even if that's probably not a good thing in certain circumstances. And let's not talk about your sense of taste, this could get ugly fast..!
Now I probably don't need to preach at lenght as to how and why those things do not apply on the internet but one thing is for sure, I don't know about you but I probably could not befriend someone very closely in real life if he was blocking all my senses with a mask (though I kind of like the Guido face), full plate armor, deer piss all over his body (for scent) and voice-changing device of any sort.
So what do you want to use a social network for if you don't want to be identified and can't identify anyone else?
If you want to remain anonymous on the internet, fine. There are plenty of tools to achieve this without even wearing a funny tinfoil hat and there are plenty of website that don't require you to identify yourself to browse their content and use their services.
But if you want to add the layer of functionality the internet provides to your real life social network by joining a net-based social network, I belive that identification would be useful if not totally necessary.
Denis, posting anonymously
Do I remember the GNAA? Sure I do. I read slashdot at -1 at all times, simply because the moderation here is unbelievably wrongheaded. So I see every troll post. And they don't bother me one bit -- I would much rather see what an Anonymous Coward has to say than subject myself to Slashdot's rather pitiful offering of preemptively devaluing the anonymous remarks. Quite often, the anonymous remarks contain more valuable content than the "highly rated" remarks. Part of that is that moderation here is so badly broken, but part of it stems directly from the fact that as an anonymous speaker, people do indeed have wider latitude in what they can say. I'm not only interested in the things we're allowed, or supposed, to say. I want to hear what people think as they actually choose to express it in the most unfettered manner possible. GNAA? That stuff is utterly pitiful, and takes just about zero effort to recognize and skip over. An anonymous post containing material unsanctioned at the source from someone in Washington, from within congress (yeah, we have posts like that here), or Iraq, or Google, for that matter... now *that's* something I'm interested in reading. And those posts would not exist in the same form if they were signed by Real Name.
The thing about slashdot is that although the corporate culture leans strongly towards the muzzling of the anonymous, it does NOT enforce this -- it leaves that up to the individual user. So I see everyone. Others choose, that is CHOOSE, to stick with the results of moderation and the default low ranking of anonymous posts.
Google's corporate culture path here is, apparently, not going to allow the users any choice about how they manage their circles. It would be as simple as Slashdot's "browse at -1" option; "only let people into my particular circle(s) if they have the "real name" thing in their profile, and then allow individual lockouts on top of that. Control it at circle granularity, and it's workable. I could have circles that were unrepressed, and others could bask in the knowledge that so-and-so is using their "Real Name."
But Google, as you point out, isn't in this for the users. That whole "do no evil" thing? Utter nonsense. As these policies show, when it comes to a choice between money and not doing people harm, money wins. And that *is* a choice they can make. And we can just look at "do no evil" as just another marketing slogan. Which I guess is exactly what it is.
The one thing consumers -- which is what we are with relation to Google -- have as our little bit of leverage is that we can vote with our value to the company; That's why you won't find me on Google+ (or Facebook.) I've never opted into either one. I always found Facebook's TOS to be odious (yeah, I actually read site TOS declarations) and Google's whole "we must know who everyone is" simply makes me want to be somewhere else where I can interact with the people they leave out.
When you opt into this real name thing, you're leaving behind those who have been stalked, those who are political rebels or pariahs,
those who the state (or the feds) have declared outcasts, those on "lists", justifiably or not, people in countries where free speech is a free ticket to a machete party... me, I have no interest in this sanitized "we know who you are" world. That's a very bad, even immoral, choice for me. But I won't say you're bad because you want to go there. I'll just view it as a place containing the people I *don't* need to be listening to. The sheep. The ones who all say the same thing, think the same thing, and are happy to have the ostracized folks living under bridges -- and would just as soon forget they exist.
I lean strongly libertarian; I think Google should be able to do what they want. But when they do things I consider odious, then *I* get to do what I want, too, and that is to not engage the company in what I consider to be less than good practices. Google+ is odious, as I presently understand it. As long as that is the case, "teh social" is "teh worthless."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Facebook was way better when you needed a .edu e-mail address. That offered a little bit of identity verification. Back in those days there wasn't much spam!
Yeah I read about it and more details here http://google-plus.com/887/verified-google-plus-profiles-or-names-aka-profile-verification-badges-launched-impersonators-stay-away/
Out them now Google so we can verify them. Their PGP keys, SSL certs, etc too.
Google, you've said yourself people hiding behind anonymity are social criminals. I name these anonymous Verifiers and your customer support department as criminals too.
Yeah...nice try with the Orwell hyperbole, but until we're voluntarily installing always-on public webcams in our homes and sending our parents to reeducation camps underneath the Department of Justice building I think we're a little short.
You can make some good comparisons here, no doubt, but it's pure idiocy to say we've gone past 1984.
And yes, I read the book. Four times. I'm not saying that make me an expert; I'm just staving off the inevitable question.
Corporations are first class citizens.
Just go to freeones.com, you will see her work.
It's a shame really, the site had potential until they started in with this "real name" crap.. Now no one seems to care any more.
Uniquely. Always. The eye in the sky will monitor you and look out for you - as long as you do what you must. Or else.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
"I fought the law and the law won, I fought the law and the law won." - The Clash
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Presumably Google developed "plus" to avoid losing the whole world to Facebook. But how can any verification process scale to hundreds of millions of users?
Certain people have to wear a badge during late 1930's.
New Economic Perspectives
I wish everyone would stop trying to half-heartedly re-invent partial subsets of OpenPGP. Just use the real thing, and you can have all you want and a whole lot more.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In the words of my ex (and also by use of, extending the amount of information you can track down about me) "Guard your innards!"
I've been lurking on this interwebs thing since the very late 80s, and I rarely leave a trail wider than I intended. Everything I do and say is effectively done through an alias, and I have one of those for each way I want to be perceived.
e.g. My most open information is tied to one of two IDs, "blackhawk-666" (and variants), and "ivan.hawkes@gmail.com", and yet a google of either will bring you up 54 pages or 397 pages - mostly programming related information. Anything you find on these two searches is likely to be true, and that includes my address, which lately I've not been so concerned about hiding. You ruffling through any mail I was too careless to shred, soak and then burn on an open fire is not my concern.
I hold other aliases which I use for when I don't want to be associated with the main branch of information kruft I leave in my wake. These are usually provided for me by hotmail aliases or one of about 50 user account variants ("Passwords are hard!").
I don't encrypt my conversations or go to great lengths to try and hide because I prefer to hide in plain sight...rig
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
... but then I saw your multimillionaire UID.
Moderation on Slashdot is NOT implicitly objective through moderation by angelic omniscient moderators.
Moderation on Slashdot is statistically objective through subjective moderation by a random sample of Slashdot members, taken from a subset of Slashdot members who statistically refrain from trolling and flaming.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I found the GNAA press releases funny.
This does not appear to be some mandatory program. It seems to be a complementary service so well known people can show they are who they say they are for the benefit of other users. I mean when you go to a social networking site and search some celebrity, do you really think the 500 results with pictures of the same person are all legit?
It's not even available to us regular folk yet, and may never be for that matter.
... and one who is trying to become Plus Sized.
What we have here is personal information mining by google in the guise of making google+ better. They'll be creating a database of collected personal information against name, location, and probably who you're friends are. I don't personally have a problem with this as I am careful what I choose to share online. But I just wish they would tell people about what they will be doing in the background.
You make perhaps the most important point in this conversation. Google can easily provide the capability for users to set requirements on who they interact with, such as only allowing verified accounts or allowing anyone if they so choose. Google will never do it because they need to be able to guarantee to their advertisers that the personal information they've gathered is legitimate and accurate in order to justify their rates. Search and advertising is Google's core business, and Google+, like every other Google project, exists to support it.
Is it just me, or is this just voluntary user authentication? If you're someone important and someone else posts as you (or even just shares your name) there is now an opportunity to validate who you are and get a little badge. The only people this hurts are people signing up as "Steve Jobs" and wanting to get screenshots of "Posted from Android" or similar idiocy. There is no relation here to a policy of needing to use your own name, simply a means for you to PREVENT someone from using your name.
You know, kind of like GPG/PGP-signing your emails.
+Fuck
I don't understand why people are so terrified about mindless algorithms using "personal" information to display ads. No other person is seeing something you choose to keep "private".
Yes, a computer knows your name, and what you had for breakfast. Big fucking deal.
Google isn't trying to control your thoughts here, or censor you, or otherwise limit your freedom. Google isn't some creepy guy who watches you in the shower. Google is a business trying to make money. All they do is ask you to sign up with your real name and people go HOLY FUCK, MY PRIVACY, QUICK STOP USING GOOGLE'S PRODUCTS THEY KNOW WHO I AM FUCK FUCK FUCK.
Seriously. Relax.
(PS. To all the paranoid dumbfucks, yes, I clearly work for Google and I am trying to silence and/or convert you. Your minds are ours.)
We don't need no stinkin' badges!!!
3w.shopvipzone.com Wholesale the cheapest jean&pants,men jeans,women jeans,long jeans,short jeans, 1). The lowest price---Only $22 according to your order quantity. 2). The highest quality---100% cuttom and world-brand. 3). The safest payment---Paypal, Western Union, Moneygram,T/T. 4). The safest&fastest delivery---within 3-7 days door-to-door. 5). Mix order(different style&products) and drop shipping are accepted. Shopvipzone International Trade Co.,Ltd is sincerely looking forward to cooperating with partners from all over the world and establishing a mutual benefit and long term business relationship between us and moving ahead with all of my dear friends! Believe your choice today, will let you win tomorrow!
The burning is excessive. After a couple of days of soaking paper in enough water to cover it most paper starts turning to pulp. Stir around with a stick for a while and it solves the problem nicely.
Paper brick maker into blocks if you are feeling excessive. But burning? A step to far in my opinion.
Then again, I have a box with water and a liberal amount of domestos. Every now and then when it gets full I give it a stir, wad what remains into a bucket and trash it. Works fine.
Meanwhile, getting away from security by destruction of documents.. I don't want google, or anyone else, to 'verify' me. Why is this required? I know who I am, as do the people I relate to online and IRL. Yes, I know, this is 'not for the commoners'. How long, though, until it is?
No, I don't have a g+ account. Waiting to see what happens. Can always join later if it turns out to be a better option than FB.
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
This needs to be said over and over:
As bad as the name idea was in the US, Canada and Europe, it's an absolute disaster for some other countries.
Some people can create engaging content that many people want to interact with, but would in this country put their job or reputation at stake.
Some people can create engaging content that many people want to interact with, but in some countries will get them killed.
Please explain to me why a women's rights advocate in Saudi Arabia should have to give up her privacy to a state which considers her activity to be treasonous.
Please explain to me why a political dissident in a dictatorship should have to give up their privacy to a state which is known to imprison people for publicly advocating incorrect political ideologies.
Please explain to me why someone who disagrees with the anti-public-domain intellectual property dogma of the US and other countries should have to risk his freedom in order to discuss ways to subvert that system.
Please explain to me why I cannot decide who I, as a person, am, and what my "real" identity is. I'm much better qualified to do this than you are, Google.
What is the real reason behind it? Who are the real people behind wanting proof in our names? Is it Google or is it a certain group of people we are not privy too? Something is awful fishy about this. Google has dragged this out for weeks. Not really knowing what to do, then knowing, and now changing it after they all ready said that they had their rules up. I don't like this. It is not good for the google+ users because it sounds like to me that Google is conversing with someone over this, and they are not employees of Google. Perhaps someone is telling google to please add this so we know whom is saying what? If you look at what has happened in the past they always had to go through a company to get names, etc. NOW THEY WONT HAVE TOO! So everything we say will be dissected, scrutinized.
If Google implements a verified identity solution, this would potentially allow them to leverage G+ as an authentication option for online business. Your G+ account could become your SSO access to your financial accounts.
I lean strongly libertarian
You don't say?
Sleep is futile.
You know you've kicked over some idols and disrespected some sacred cows when your "F-U!" post goes up to +4, then down to +3, up to +5 again and then down to +1 Insightful.
While your completely unrelated posts suffer some -1 splash damage.
Reminds me of that one time I talked badly of Apple, back in the under 500k UID days.
Had negative karma for almost a year.
Almost felt like a rebel.
Hilarious.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens