Google Launches Identity Verification Badge Scheme

But... by garatheus · 2011-08-21 04:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

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).

Re:But... by iamhassi · 2011-08-21 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm getting to the point where I no longer like Google, nor it's products. Verify this, Google+ that, really now.
Agreed, but isn't this better than what they were doing?

Before they would ban everyone they thought was fake. Now it appears they'll let you be fake, but you get a extra "This is a REAL Person!" badge if they verify you.

This is a GOOD thing. So now you can have your fake and anonymous profiles for those that are worried what they say on the internet will get back to their job, and you can have your "real name" accounts for family and friends.

Really they should have been doing this since the beginning but better late than never, and this is the first feature they've added that has not been a direct copy from Facebook since Facebook still bans people that they think are fake even though they're real.

Good job Google+, I might switch to you yet.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Re:But... by cyberfunkr · 2011-08-21 07:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Where did it say it would allow fake names?
The article is saying Google will start verifying that names are real. Presumably so that when you "circle" Adam Sessler you're getting the nerd you hoped for and not some random dude in Baltimore.
Now, if you used a "sorta" fake name (like I tend to only use part of my last name) they will crack down to make sure it's completely accurate. You must be who you say you are and leave anonymity in the dust.
Re:But... by David+Gerard · 2011-08-21 07:13 · Score: 1

They've already been marking "verified" a pile of fake names.
Whoever is in charge of this is an idiot.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Re:But... by msauve · 2011-08-21 07:43 · Score: 1

"I tend to only use part of my last name"

Your real name is Cyber Funker?

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-21 19:34 · Score: 1

No, it's Cyber Funkermeister. He only uses part of his last name.
Re:But... by justforgetme · 2011-08-21 19:58 · Score: 1

I really don't like having duplicate accounts.
What makes you think this is a good thing?

--
-- no sig today
Re:But... by makomk · 2011-08-21 21:34 · Score: 1

Google have been quite happy to let big-name celebrities use their "fake" names that everyone knows them by rather than their real names - no matter how unusual those names are. It's just normal peons that are forced to use the name on their ID. Part of Google's strategy seems to be to get as many celebrities on Google+ as possible.

I demand the right to determine... by John+Allsup · 2011-08-21 04:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re:I demand the right to determine... by ScrewMaster · 2011-08-21 04:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not exactly sure what Google is trying to achieve. I think that's part of the problem. It's not enough to say, "Oh, we're just trying to maintain and improve the user experience." That's the same kind of blathering idiocy that outfits like Comcast spew when they perform MITM attacks on their own customers and claim it was just "network management". What kind of community are you trying to build, and exactly what do you, Google, expect to receive in return for your largesse? Is it just that they want to force the use real identities so they can better their profiling, to improve the rate of return on targeted advertising? That's all fine and dandy, I suppose ... but maybe I don't want that. And maybe there's something else.

Hm.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:I demand the right to determine... by SuricouRaven · 2011-08-21 05:12 · Score: 2

I imagine it's for linking accounts. Google does have partners, as does Facebook. A real name means they can match up your profile with your store loyalty cards, credit card records, insurance records, and so on.
Re:I demand the right to determine... by benjamindees · 2011-08-21 05:27 · Score: 1

I'm not exactly sure what Google is trying to achieve.
That's easy. They're trying to monetize your participation in their "community". Now that Wall St. has built a $600 trillion derivatives market of fraudulent debt with which to financially engineer the lives of everyone on the planet, they need to account for the limited resource of "mindshare".
And mindshare is actually fairly valuable. Every minute that you spend playing some pointless game on a social networking site is a minute that you aren't spending consuming resources, or inventing the latest disruptive technology, or reverse-engineering some corporation's obsolete profit-center, or procreating, or engaging in some other activity that is destructive to the interests of the handful of people who own 90% of the planet's capital.
Because the one thing the banksters know, despite what their politician stooges tell you, is that it's a zero sum game.

--
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Re:I demand the right to determine... by David+Gerard · 2011-08-21 07:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

The essential problem is the same thing that killed Friendster and Buzz - it's the common startup failure mode where they decide how they want the users to use the service, the users have their own ideas, and they end up b anning large chunks of their userbase to disastrous effect.
If you want users, you have to not piss off a huge proportion of your userbase. Stupid startups forget this and die; smart ones realise the users will tell them what business they're actually in. But if the company is large enough, and you have a sufficiently arrogant ex-MS VP on the case, stupidity can run for really quite some time.
G+ is fantastic software. It's really nice to use. It kills office productivity way deader than Facebook. But half my stream is people outraged at the names fuckup.
People are seriously talking about leaving all Google services (and posting how-to FAQs). They're even contemplating using Bing for search. Just how toxic do you need to make your brand for people to contemplate using Bing?

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Re:I demand the right to determine... by darrylo · 2011-08-21 08:45 · Score: 3, Informative

+1 :-)
Seriously, I'm peeved enough that I'm actually looking around for decent MS exchange hosting for my iPhone (for push calendars and push contacts, not just email). Apple's iCloud almost fits the bill, but they don't allow the use of other (e.g., personal) domains, so they're out.
So far, based upon a little googling (is this ironic, or what?), I'm leaning towards exchangemymail or 123together. Anyone have other suggestions, or good/bad comments? (Yeah, it's like $14/month, but I'm willing to pay that.)
I did think about hosting my own server, but I don't know if I want to do all that work (I do have a static IP that isn't in a blacklist, so that's a plus). I think Zarafa is the only game in town if you want push email/contacts/calendar and the iPhone (IIRC, Zimbra is pretty expensive initially, with the break-even point being something like 4-5 years).
Re:I demand the right to determine... by David+Gerard · 2011-08-21 09:23 · Score: 1

Personal data storage locker. Currently vapour->alpha. Looks interesting and sensible though.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Re:I demand the right to determine... by darrylo · 2011-08-21 09:30 · Score: 1

That looks interesting, but (as you say) it also appears to be a long way from being usable (e.g., accessible via the iPhone's contacts mechanism). I'm not complaining, mind you; while this certainly looks worthwhile, it's still in its infancy, and I need something *now*. :-(
Re:I demand the right to determine... by Homburg · 2011-08-21 11:39 · Score: 1

You can use any name you like, as long as you are not intentionally using a name to defraud someone. There may be restrictions on the name you use for certain particular legal purposes (though there aren't in England - to change your name, you just need to start using your new name, a deed poll is just a record of the change if you need official documentation of it).
Re:I demand the right to determine... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-08-21 12:02 · Score: 1

Who was banned from Buzz?
Re:I demand the right to determine... by David+Gerard · 2011-08-21 19:08 · Score: 2

Sorry, that was me confusing issues. Friendster was kicking users off for not doing as they were told. With Buzz the problem was people being sucked into it and having their GMail network exposed (in some cases putting them in personal danger) without them doing anything, and switching Buzz off not actually switching it off. The similarity is a service designed entirely for the company and not at all for the users, who are then considered annoyances.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Re:I demand the right to determine... by Omestes · 2011-08-22 04:36 · Score: 1

Your right, my name is VERY unique. A quick Google search shows me that there is only 5-6 of me represented online (who knows how many who aren't represented) in the US. Also there is probably about 1,000 people sharing my name in Ireland and other parts of the UK. Hell, there are two of me in my state. I don't have a terribly common surname name either, especially since my father changed it back to its pre-immigration roots, meaning it isn't shared with any of my relatives.
I'm beginning to think the "pro-anonymity" crowd is going a bit overboard, especially whinging about a free, optional, service. Great, you don't want to give your real name to Google... DON'T. No one cares if you're on Google+ or not. If anonymity is necessary (and not merely some silly fetish, as it seems to be with some crowds online) then don't participate in places where it is barred. Seems pretty simple to me.
I suppose it is a testimony to Google+'s desirability that some people feel they have to be members.
I really don't care anymore. I view superfluous anonymity as a mere artifact of the early days of computing, when online (via the internet or BBS) presence was completely separate from life. It was an alter-ego, an escapist identity, often used to cover potentially extra-legal activity, or at least activities outside of the established societal norms. Having anonymity made sense. Now, on the other hand, the internet is about as separate from out day-to-day life as going to the grocery store, or local bar. It's a normal, quotidian, aspect of life. I was a very firm believer in pseudonyms for years, but lately I've been pondering to using my real name, for the sake of credibility. I have a much harder time taking an AC seriously, than someone who at least has a small stake in their behaviors and statements. If your not willing to risk reputation, then what you say should be valued less than someone who is. Yes, there is some need for anonymity for certain groups, and this should be protected, but it is also within the right of a site owner to bar them entry. Though, in reality, there is no anonymity, even on the internet, it is an illusion. Someone with some time, dedication, or a subpoena, could easily get a decent idea of who you are. Hell, the way things are going right now, a 14 year old "hacker" with a bit of freely available software, and a couple minutes of free time, could probably grab your identity from some giant corporation like Sony.
Generally people are AC because they want to be bigger morons than is generally acceptable in civil society, and not for any genuine NEED of privacy. If some forum wants to bar AC posters, or presences, that is perfectly fine. Hell, I even see it as a strength. It would help to kill off trolls, morons, and 13 year olds with power trips.
I'm not arguing that the whole of the internet should require real identities. There is still a need for anonymity. And if sites with to keep anonymity, they should be allowed. But if I run a service, and decide not to allow you in, you just have to cope. Tough. You don't have the "right" to be an AC.
Maybe I'm just getting old, and am oddly free of the common internet tendencies towards narcissism and paranoia. What does anonymity get me? Marketers will find a way of tracking me. The government, or dedicated individuals can trace me. Etc... The solution, treat the internet like you would treat anything else in "real" life. Keep your secrets secret. Don't act like an asshole in public. And, for the internet, realize that EVERYTHING IS PUBLIC, and act accordingly.

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Re:I demand the right to determine... by SuricouRaven · 2011-08-22 04:52 · Score: 1

My main concern is with the practical aspects of employment and social life without the protection that being anonymous gives. If everything you ever say is just a few searches away, it could easily come back to haunt you - employers may quietly turn your job application down because of something you once wrote in a blog comment, your relatives might take offence because you disagree with them on a political issue. If you can't say things without them going on a record that will linger for decades, it isn't entirely safe to say anything. You certainly can't ever be harshly critical of any social movement, religion or political party - you might need the support of one of their members some day.

At least with the current situation, it takes effort to track someone down. Building a complete profile of someone's online activity for personal (mis)use would take a great deal of work and expense, and a bit of legal know-how too.

I'm concerned because I work in a school. This means that I can never use my real name online, because the pupils have time on their hands and the curiosity to look me up. That would be a very bad thing. First they would find all the comments I have made mocking religion, which in themselves are enough to endanger my job. Then they would find the sites hosting my dabbling in art and story-writing, both of which would be very embarassing because I just suck. Then they would find the even suckier porn I wrote, which is sure to get me fired. The only reason I can do any of these things is that I do them under aliases, and it would be very difficult to find them given only my real name, location and occupation.

If anything and everything is public, then you can't say anything that might create trouble for you at any time in future. You'd end up with an internet of people trying to remain 'true neutral' - afraid to post anything more serious than lolcats.

Anonymity does indeed make assholes, of that their is little doubt. But what is wrong with pseudo-anonyminity, with aliases as is already common practice 'Omestes?' They provide a reputation, but with the ability to hold personal, family and professional lives in strict isolation, and giving people the chance to reinvent themselves as they mature without being haunted by the immaturity of their youth.
Re:I demand the right to determine... by Omestes · 2011-08-22 05:31 · Score: 1

You have some very valid points, and I pretty much agree with you.
As I stated, there should be room for anonymity, or at least pseudo-anonymity. But no service provider should be forced to not require real names either. That is why I don't see the point of the Google+ nerd-rage, if being anonymous is personally required, or desired, then don't use the service. Or just use a convincing real-sounding fake name.
The most amusing bit of Google+ rage I've heard was from someone who uses their real name on Facebook, and have a somewhat successful blog under their real name, rage-quitting Google+ because they couldn't use a pseudonym. That and a lot of the people publicisizing this issue are listed as "internet celebrities" or "personalities", whose real name are publicly available. To them, the seeds of this debate, it is more about not being allowed to use their brand name than being forced to use their real name.
A bigger problem is the societal one, that some of us feel the (legitimate, in your case) need to hide our views lest we be judged. The fact that somehow our private lives have become linked to our professionalism ones, with the professional one basically destroying our ability to have a decent private life. You being a vocal atheist (or whatnot) should really have no bearing on your merits as a teacher. They are not really linked, but somehow we decided that they are. Sure, there are things that should be held against people (teachers liking kiddie-porn, for instance, or heavy substance abuse, or such), but basic views and political leanings shouldn't play a role. You should be solely judged on your merits within your profession. Teaching high school physics (or whatnot) has nothing to do with you being a Buddhist Republican who likes Jello, or a Satanist Libertarian who likes puppies, or an atheistic, socialist who voted for Kodos.

But what is wrong with pseudo-anonyminity, with aliases as is already common practice 'Omestes?' They provide a reputation, but with the ability to hold personal, family and professional lives in strict isolation, and giving people the chance to reinvent themselves as they mature without being haunted by the immaturity of their youth.
Again, nothing against it. Even if I'm slowly moving towards using my actual identity in some domains (mainly since either my credibility is held to a higher necessary standard, or for legal standing), I'm not about to ditch my Slashdot (and many other online services) handle. I'm not sure being "Omestes" is necessary anymore, but I like it, and have gone by it since some point in the mid 90's. It isn't really an alternative identity anymore, I wouldn't say anything under this alias, that I wouldn't say to you in real life, as myself. I probably keep it mostly for habit, nostalgia, and the fact that in some circles it carries some modicum of credibility. One thing though, it is VERY, VERY hard to start using my real name, even in limited domains. It goes against all of the rules I learned during my formative online (and BBS) years. Adding my real name to my camera's meta-data took weeks of deliberation and stress. I wish I joking.

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Re:I demand the right to determine... by ScrewMaster · 2011-08-24 15:37 · Score: 1

People are seriously talking about leaving all Google services (and posting how-to FAQs). They're even contemplating using Bing for search. Just how toxic do you need to make your brand for people to contemplate using Bing?
True, but we're talking the early adopters here, the ones that are actually thinking about these issues (like us, here on Slashdot.) Google is using us to help work out the bugs. Now that's just great, I'm happy to help so far as that goes. But ultimately Google is going to have to shoot for popularity, for numbers, and I doubt that the bulk of humanity is really very concerned about their privacy. The fact that there are seven hundred million Facebook users tells me that much.

Google is just figuring out a way to pry as much information out of each user as it possibly can, in order to more effectively advertise to them. I mean, it's what they do. So I don't really expect Google to pay much attention to the privacy naysayers. All this smoke about trying to improve the quality of the conversations is just that: smoke: I've had hundreds of very interesting dialogues here on Slashdot, and I've never used my real name. So I really don't buy that real names are necessary for a viable social networking service.

It's a fine line though: the people who are signing up now are the ones that are going to either a. proselytize on Google's behalf or b. dis the service to all and sundry. It doesn't matter how wonderful your service is if it gets an initial bad rap among the very people you're depending upon to sell it to other people for you!

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:please stand up by hcs_$reboot · 2011-08-21 04:21 · Score: 1

I knew that!

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...

Maybe this _is_ them backing down by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-21 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Maybe this _is_ them backing down by Stepnsteph · 2011-08-21 06:36 · Score: 1

This. Exactly this. Every word of it.
Re:Maybe this _is_ them backing down by bonch · 2011-08-21 11:43 · Score: 1

That won't happen. Google's core business is selling targeted advertising space, and they have to justify their rates to advertisers as well as the value of the demographics being advertised to by guaranteeing that the harvested data is legitimate and that they come from real people.

Verified celebrities by ByteSlicer · 2011-08-21 04:24 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Verified celebrities by ScrewMaster · 2011-08-21 04:28 · Score: 2

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.
No doubt you're right. On the other hand, very little else about modern media personalities is real either.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Verified celebrities by Haedrian · 2011-08-21 04:49 · Score: 1

Its still 'owned' by the celebrity in a way. So that's fine.
Contrast it to me creating my own account, naming myself after a celebrity and making claims to ruin the person's rep.
I can already work out how this sort of 'attack' would be done. You create a fake profile, get a large amount of people to add you to your circles and appear above the real celebrity in the results. Someone with enough bots/followers might pull it off. I wonder why anon hasn't tried something like that yet.
Re:Verified celebrities by Larryish · 2011-08-21 06:30 · Score: 1

On the other hand, very little else about modern media personalities is real either.
Especially the boobies.
Re:Verified celebrities by DerekLyons · 2011-08-21 09:47 · Score: 1

That depends on which big artists you're talking about. Google has been very, very smart about who they've invited and who they're trying to hook - not just the A-list Entertainment Tonight celebrities, but a variety of big fish in little ponds too. You make not know who Marc Spagnoulo is, but virtually every woodworker on the net has. Ditto for Thomas Hawk. (One of the mostly widely followed photographers/photo writers on the 'net.) Etc... etc...

And their identities need to be verified every bit as much the latest starlet out of Hollywood - because those are the people that bring in the early adopters. It's that first ring of early adopters (like the already closely connected college classmates of early Facebook days) and their contacts that bring in folks like me. In turn, it's folks like me that bring in Mom, Grandma, and the rest of the kinfolk.

Until critical mass is reached - I suspect the whole of Google's strategy rests on those verified celebrities, large and small. That's one of the key reasons they keep coming back to some form of verified identity. That, and the one thing that Slashdot seems to miss - most users of social networks want to able to find and be found by high school classmates, lost cousins, old shipmates and army buddies, etc.. etc.. They could care less about the fig leaf of pseudo anonymity the tin foil hat crowd considers the gold standard.
Re:Verified celebrities by AdrianKemp · 2011-08-22 01:16 · Score: 1

I'm sure you are right in using "most", but I have been to concerts and watched some artists whip out an iPad and check their twitter feed or post a photo from stage (John Mayer, for example, uses twitter to get requests from the audience).
Again, you said most and I'm sure you're correct in that. But it is *definitely* not all.

Same as Twitter, then? by Kelson · 2011-08-21 04:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

This sounds basically the same as the "Verified Account" badge on Twitter that's used to identify high-profile celebrities as not being impostors.

Re:Same as Twitter, then? by RJFerret · 2011-08-21 04:56 · Score: 1

Yes, it just puts a checkmark after the name, which if you mouseover says "Verified".
Right now the announcement said it's only available for celebrity and hugely followed accounts--so just like Twitter.
PS: And just for entertainment, many of those accounts are using their common names, not their real names, nor legal names.
Re:Same as Twitter, then? by ryanmcdonough · 2011-08-21 05:44 · Score: 1

This sounds basically the same as the "Verified Account" badge on Twitter that's used to identify high-profile celebrities as not being impostors.
Exactly, they also said they'll be rolling it out to normal people when they could, 18 months on and still no sign of expanding past the small minority of celebrities that make up their user base.
Re:Same as Twitter, then? by nospam007 · 2011-08-21 09:35 · Score: 1

"used to identify high-profile celebrities as not being impostors."
I see, people like Thomas Mapother IV and Robert Zimmerman?
Re:Same as Twitter, then? by supersloshy · 2011-08-21 13:26 · Score: 2

Every single person that dislikes this, READ THE ABOVE COMMENT! This is not required for everyone! It's just to prevent people from following fake accounts. Is this so wrong?

--
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen

Privacy vs Transparency by h00manist · 2011-08-21 04:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

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/

Re:Privacy vs Transparency by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-21 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

"whether or not we like it,"
That's just the thing. We DO like it. Well, I don't, maybe you don't either, but in the aggregate we the public LOVE giving up our privacy and anonymity. We do it voluntarily, in exchange for things we could have gotten without giving it up.
I've been on the internet a long time. Since the early 80's. I've watched people by the hundreds of millions chose the paths that allow for more monitoring, less privacy, and so forth, time after time after time.
We GAVE the authorities and the data mining private companies this control. I'm willing to PGP my mail to anyone. I don't use facebook, I block their "like" buttons, I block google's tracking crap, I encrypt my IM conversations with friends. But do other people? Generally no. The internet has turned into a place that allows a scale of monitoring and behavioral profiling that exceeds anything George Orwell could have imagined. It didn't have to be this way. It's this way because we don't care.
It's a fight I fought for many years, trying to convince people to value their privacy. I lost.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by leonem · 2011-08-21 05:00 · Score: 1

This is bang on.
One of the big things George Orwell didn't include in 1984 was the chiasmus: the government watches everyone, everyone watches the government. All sorts of things, from mobile phone recordings of police malpractice to the MPs' expenses scandal (I'm a Brit) show how technology cuts both ways in this regard.
We might also reach a stage where the ability to tailor things in both directions based on individuals makes government start to seem less like a monolith and more like what it really is: a very large group of people doing a whole bunch of things, some of whom are mostly up front and some of whom are mostly underhand.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-21 05:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

Or maybe we do care and actually do like it. Data mining seems to be a derogatory term among slashdot users, but have you ever thought that by doing so companies are finding out about what we really want and delivering it to us? Insurance companies are able to asses more information about you and give lower rates to those who pose the least risk. Same with banks. Advertising companies can show us products we might actually be interested in, instead of a 20 year old female seeing adds for generic viagra.
I would say 95% of the information companies collect about us actually benefits us or society. The other 5% is what I worry about, and I think like the poster above you that if we forced companies to be as transparent about what they are doing as the users, it really wouldn't be a problem.
Currently companies hold all the power in collection of personal information and secrets, but a little legislation can fix that.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-21 06:10 · Score: 1

This could be used for a good thing. There are cases you want to know 'yes this is really the person I think it is'. For example your bank. You want to know it is your bank. Or someone your applying for a job (and not some scheme to get 50 bucks out of you).
You are confusing identity with security. Unfortunatly our identities can be used to compromise security.
The very case of anonymous protections are being used by criminals to bilk people out of billions of dollars a year. They use our very freedoms against us.
People like to *feel* they are anonymous on the internet. They are not. For instance you are willing to use PGP. That *VERY* PGP signature ties it back to you. You are willing to stand up and say who you are just by the very fact you use that service. That was kind of the point of PGP. With a little bit of work you can usually figure out within a couple of houses were someone is just by using IP, and most web boards log where things came from.
I can see why they are doing it. Look at the pit that youtube discussions became. Look at how people act on Facebook. Which is better? A bunch of people throwing shit at each other. Or what really happens on facebook people getting along helping each other, sharing what they did today, and hanging out playing some mindless games?
The only reason I do not log into this discussion board with my real name is because I pissed someone off a few years ago and now he stalks me. Yet he wasnt bright enough to do it on other boards. I got tired of talking about nuke power all the time with this guy. It may be ok now I guess. Which is a problem with these real identity systems. Most of them do not have an effect way to deal with asshats.
I would almost make the case that being anonymous breeds conflict most of the time. I enjoy a good flame war as the next guy. But maybe Google doesnt want that? Now can they keep the two parts of their business separate? I seriously doubt it. As the whole point is to enhance ad words.
Sure people will say things they wouldnt normally say when they think they can get away with it. But in probably 99.999% of the cases I would say they could just as easily said it as themselves. But they are like what slashdot calls us 'Anonymous Cowards'. Ive seen the world where there are no consequences for peoples actions. I dont like it.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by DJRumpy · 2011-08-21 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

You do realize that information is a double edged sword? Those same insurance companies that may cut you a break will also charge you a premium based on such info as well. If a bank knows you've been visiting loan sites to much, or checking bankruptcy sites, you credit worthiness could be damaged.

I would say 95% of the information companies collect about us actually benefits us or society.

If the information they collect is beneficial, it is still YOURS, and you should be the one in control of it's release. This should not be a tacit agreement, or a one answer gives full access situation, but rather you should have granular access over what is and is not released. Unfortunately every inch you give is almost impossible to claim back later on.
I would say you are misguided to think that data mining is in any way beneficial to you personally or to society in general. It gives corporations an unfair advantage in pricing (for instance they can leverage markets based on local wage values, forcing up the cost to what the local neighborhood will bare rather than a fair price), All data mining does is to put a dollar sign new to your personal info, but that value isn't valuable to you, but rather to those who sell it to the highest bidders.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-21 06:58 · Score: 1

"Fighting" with people to force your opinions on them never works. You clearly made a basic, foolish mistake that 10 minutes in any history class ever could have helped you avoid.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by bonch · 2011-08-21 11:08 · Score: 2

Sure, right after you explain why you're posting anonymously.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by bonch · 2011-08-21 11:19 · Score: 2

This is the third anonymous supporter of data mining I've seen in this one thread alone. It's getting a little suspicious.

Sure people will say things they wouldnt normally say when they think they can get away with it. But in probably 99.999% of the cases I would say they could just as easily said it as themselves. But they are like what slashdot calls us 'Anonymous Cowards'. Ive seen the world where there are no consequences for peoples actions. I dont like it.
Made-up figures like "99.999%" are meaningless. I find it more curious that you're afraid to post with a Slashdot account because of a stalker. It's not even your real name but a Slashdot username, yet you still find it necessary to remain anonymous. And still, you defend tying online presence to real names and claim that using real names alleviates shit-throwing, even though that still happens on Facebook.
If someone wanted to prevent anonymous or non-verified comments on their Google+ account, Google could easily provide that capability. However, Google needs valid personal information to justify its ad rates. Google's motives are purely selfish and have nothing to do with trying to prevent conflict.
The point of allowing anonymity is to accept the benefits with the belief that they outweigh the negatives. And again, I have to point out the remarkable hypocrisy of anonymously writing a post criticizing anonymity.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by tftp · 2011-08-21 11:29 · Score: 1

For instance you are willing to use PGP. That *VERY* PGP signature ties it back to you.
The PGP/GPG signature does no such thing, even if you *choose* to sign your outgoing messages. The signature only says that the message is signed with a certain private key. The name and email fields of the key contain whatever you choose to put into them, nothing more and nothing less. The key doesn't have to be signed by anyone, and your identity doesn't have to be verified - even if you choose to post your public key on a keyserver.
You are willing to stand up and say who you are just by the very fact you use that service.
PGP is not a service.
With a little bit of work you can usually figure out within a couple of houses were someone is just by using IP
Geolocation on my own IP is off by about 100 miles. I'm not surprised because that's where my ISP is located. I doubt they even know my exact geographical coordinates, unless they ask the phone company or use my address on Google Earth.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-08-21 12:00 · Score: 1

I am not anonymous, but I share the same sentiment as GP. Can we discuss his point now?
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by D'Sphitz · 2011-08-21 12:44 · Score: 1

I had thought the verification thing had to do with their whole "circles" idea which is kind of the central focus of G+. It would hurt G+ if people lost faith in their system because people were sneaking their way into circles they don't belong in.

Or maybe I'm just naive and they have more nefarious intentions.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-21 14:53 · Score: 1

No, fuck off.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by Scott+Scott · 2011-08-21 18:17 · Score: 1

People forget that it's much harder to go "hey, I want to be monitored a little less now".
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-21 19:36 · Score: 1

It's this way because we don't care.
No, it's this way because it's really really difficult for the average idiot to care. How are people supposed to know that Flash leaves cookies on your computer when they have trouble distinguishing IE from the Internet? Many people only know what the media or their bank tells them, especially if they have no frequent contact with a /. reader. We now have banks which promote antiviruses and keyloggers, and people think that once they download all this stuff they are completely secure forever.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by justforgetme · 2011-08-21 19:49 · Score: 1

I don't really care about the percentages, they usually only represent what the author can perceive and in such they are almost always irrelevant.
I do agree on your other point though. I like to bash ACs (just because I can and they are ACs) but I am not bashing /. for having them. In the contrary I support the fact that /. supports added levels of anonymity. This way even the wimps can express their honest position. And that's a good thing imo. But let's not get over our heads here. If You want to be taken seriously about a contra anonymity position you have to post eponymous..
In the words of the wise /. :

"Forced Identity validation is a good thing!"
Anonymous Coward

--
-- no sig today
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by g253 · 2011-08-21 23:14 · Score: 1

That would be fine, but apparently some people have lost access to other google stuff (gmail, calendar, docs...) after some misunderstanding regarding their identity. That's not acceptable.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by N1AK · 2011-08-22 00:06 · Score: 1

I'll happily critiscise some of the things that anonymity fosters and am happy to do without ACing. A lot of people do a lot of stupid, malicous, misleading, dishonest things when they're presented with the chance to act 'anonymously'. It doesn't make anonymity inherently bad, in fact I think anonymity is a fantastic thing and should not be quashed across the entire internet. However, although I like the idea that people should be free to setup and use anonymous boards/messaging etc it does not mean I don't support having some sites that try and require users to have a verified identity.

If you don't want to give up your 'anonymity' then Google+ isn't designed for you. Either you accept that and join or you can continue to use other services that support anonymity.
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by kilfarsnar · 2011-08-22 06:56 · Score: 1

Orwell references are too far fetched? Tell that to the people arrested in London. Or to the peace activists who have been spied on and harassed by the FBI.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Re:Privacy vs Transparency by JohnFen · 2011-08-22 11:13 · Score: 1

A lot of people do a lot of stupid, malicous, misleading, dishonest things when they're presented with the chance to act 'anonymously'.
And those people will also do a lot of stupid, malicous, misleading, dishonest things without the anonymity. It seems to me, when comparing and contrasting the actions of anonymous with theoretically not-anonymous people online, that there is very little difference. Some are great, and some suck.
I said "theoretically" because there is no way of knowing, really, if someone is using a pseudonym or not. Even Google can't be sure, and isn't trying. They've already said outright that they just want people to have realistic names, not necessarily accurate ones.
But you're right on one point -- Google+ certainly isn't for me.

who do they think they are? by TheRecklessWanderer · 2011-08-21 04:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:who do they think they are? by BrianRoach · 2011-08-21 04:59 · Score: 1

Correct. Same as every "free" service you use on the internet. Social networks just make it easier than trying to track you with cookies, etc because you actually have a identifying login.
There's no such thing as free. You're paying with your behaviors and demographics.
I fully support someone choosing not to use a service because they don't care for this bargain, but people who don't seem to understand that businesses aren't in business to give them stuff for free kinda annoy me.
Re:who do they think they are? by Gaygirlie · 2011-08-21 07:07 · Score: 1

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.
I often see people justifying the fact that they don't participate in Google+ because of the marketing, but... well, HOW do they market to you anything that they don't already do? I mean, unless you have something that e.g. blocks all Google AdWords then YOU'RE SEEING MARKETING ANYWAYS. You don't suddenly see more marketing once you sign to Google+, you just might see more interesting ads, that's all. And well, why is it bad to see more ads for stuff that might actually interest you? Do you have trouble deciding for yourself whether or not you should buy something and that's why you avoid ads that might be even mildly interesting, or what?
Atleast I rather see ads that I might find intriguing than ads that aren't in any way related to my tastes, especially when I'm going to see ads anyways.
Re:who do they think they are? by bonch · 2011-08-21 11:54 · Score: 1

I fully support someone choosing not to use a service because they don't care for this bargain, but people who don't seem to understand that businesses aren't in business to give them stuff for free kinda annoy me.
And the groveling attitudes toward Google and its alleged betterment of society that pop up so often on Slashdot annoy me, so it's good to remind everyone now and then that Google is one of those evil megacorps Slashdot hates so much.
Especially since Microsoft was trashed for years over its use of side products to tie people to their core business.
Re:who do they think they are? by knorthern+knight · 2011-08-21 15:13 · Score: 1

> You know, if you take off your tin foil hat for a moment, you might
> realize that no one at all gives a flying fuck about your little life
Well, there's that manager who's going through a stack of resumes trying to figure out whom to hire. The usual process is to eliminate as many applicants as possible, so look them up in the various social nets. And there are some corporate assholes who get off on firing people. Don't give them excuses.

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Re:who do they think they are? by pentadecagon · 2011-08-21 20:16 · Score: 1

... 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.
And that's why I *like* Google+. I actually prefer tailored marketing as compared to random toothpaste advertising.

What about companies, bands, and trade names? by MobyDisk · 2011-08-21 04:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

This will help you feel safe... by Omnifarious · 2011-08-21 04:33 · Score: 2

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

Re:This will help you feel safe... by ScrewMaster · 2011-08-21 04:49 · Score: 1

I'm tempted to just drop anybody who signs up for this scheme in protest.
I'm inclined to agree. Google always seemed to have a better handle on the importance of trust than many others in the online world. I never bothered with Facebook for that reason, and if Google puts me in the position where I don't trust who I have to thank for their services, no matter how useful they are ... well, it's not like social networking is an essential. Some will claim that it is, but that's only because they need psychiatric care. Obviously Google is hoping that enough people will find G+ sufficiently valuable in spite of this issue. And they're probably right: given how little thought millions of people give to their privacy online, those of us who are complaining about this are the merest blip on the radar. That's too bad though: from a technical and usability perspective, Google+ is pretty nice.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:This will help you feel safe... by Ralph+Yarro · 2011-08-21 06:29 · Score: 1

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.
Do you think maybe you're taking it a little personally? I mean really, whatever the pluses or minuses or this, it may be a ridiculous bureaucracy or a bit of a hassle or just no fun but Google really aren't 'attacking' your friends for having unusual names.
Can we get some insight into why the above was modded down? Does anyone disagree that Omnifarious' feeling that his friends are being attacked is completely ridiculous?

--

The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Re:This will help you feel safe... by Omnifarious · 2011-08-21 10:43 · Score: 1

Do you think maybe you're taking it a little personally? I mean really, whatever the pluses or minuses or this, it may be a ridiculous bureaucracy or a bit of a hassle or just no fun but Google really aren't 'attacking' your friends for having unusual names.
What else do you call it when you account is suspended (such a punitive word) and you have to go through a whole bunch of rigamarole and backflips in order to prove that your name really is the right name? And even then it might not come back. It certainly feels like an attack to them.
Imagine you were standing around talking in a club with friends, and some bouncer came up to you, separated you from your friends and said "I don't think you gave me your real name at the door, that name sounds funny, I don't think that's the name you go by at all. So prove it to me!". That would certainly feel like an attack to me.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

Mmm Yummy FUD by Haedrian · 2011-08-21 04:38 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Mmm Yummy FUD by Ralph+Yarro · 2011-08-21 06:40 · Score: 1

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.
Yes there is, you'd be sued for breaking your NDA. Those plans are available only to a very select group.

--

The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Re:Mmm Yummy FUD by Darinbob · 2011-08-21 14:35 · Score: 1

This seems reasonable. I am honestly surprised at the angry responses to this. Is it just people venting over google+ in general rather than this particular idea?

Violent Stalkers by ethicalcannibal · 2011-08-21 04:39 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Violent Stalkers by Haedrian · 2011-08-21 04:45 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that unless you're a celebrity of some sort (who needs is real name to identify him), using a believable name is enough to get around Google I think.
Then again its a social network. Also if you have stalkers, then simply use the privacy tools properly. You can show your stalking family members very little information about you, and show posts to the right people in the right circles.
Re:Violent Stalkers by n5vb · 2011-08-21 05:28 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that unless you're a celebrity of some sort (who needs is real name to identify him), using a believable name is enough to get around Google I think.

I suspect using a name that doesn't match common non-name words in the most commonly-used languages on the Internet is probably more than enough. I'm currently waiting to see if they can see a common non-name word and a common place name through rot13. (And if they do, it will mean they're working hard enough to ferret out pseudonymous users that they're almost certainly mining them for back-end profit from advertisers, at which point I can choose to no longer be a product.)

Then again its a social network. Also if you have stalkers, then simply use the privacy tools properly. You can show your stalking family members very little information about you, and show posts to the right people in the right circles.

If you trust the privacy tools, which I tend not to. Some of them leak in unexpected ways, and while I don't know of any examples of G+ doing this, I can recall more instances than I can count of Facebook promising privacy and then (oops!) turning on a new feature that defaults to the most wide-open setting there is, requiring users to monitor their privacy settings constantly and turn off new promiscuous features as they're added. We know Facebook is like the "BFF" in junior high school who swears to keep your secrets, and then scatters them far and wide on the gossip circuit at the first opportunity -- because, after all, what was their initial target demographic? -- and it's only natural in that light to anticipate that G+ is just better at covering their tracks in that regard, so in that light, do you really trust them with your full legal name, knowing that your employer or your harassing conservative-minded relatives are only one covert disclosure away from pallet-loads of ammunition to use against you? Are you sure?
Re:Violent Stalkers by Haedrian · 2011-08-21 05:39 · Score: 1

I trust Google+ with my privacy more than FB for a simple reason.
FB outsources advertising.
Google is an advertising company.
What I basically mean is, that Google already has all the info it needs, and uses it itself. It doesn't need to 'leak' the information by changing polcies so advertisers get more data. FB on the other hand has to.
Now Google saw that FB privacy was a problem, and built it privacy-up - with its permissions circles and all that. So right, while there could be a technical glitch, I don't see Google doing it accidentally on purpose.
Re:Violent Stalkers by BradleyUffner · 2011-08-21 13:30 · Score: 1

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.
Ok, here is what you do in that situation.
1. Change your Google+ profile to make your location ifnroamtion Private.
2. Don't post publicly any information that would let your stalker find you.
3. Don't post privately any information that you don't trust your trusted friends to have.
4. Don't add your stalker to your circles.
Or alternatively, stop posting information you don't want the public to have on a public website.
If you need to post anonymously, don't post it from Google+!

Ah, a "ME" generation kid by SmallFurryCreature · 2011-08-21 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by houghi · 2011-08-21 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

The reason is simple, they want to know who you are so that you will behave.
That is all google wants I think.
What they want is to have as much data linked to as many people as possible. If it is verifiable to a person then that data is easier to use and make money from.
If doing this (for now) for well known people then this will most likely increase the number of followers. This then creates more usable data that can be cross referenced. and soled again.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by betterunixthanunix · 2011-08-21 05:48 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Unfortunately, if online anonymity goes away, free speech will suffer. You may not agree with his views, but Ward Churchill had every right to publish those views -- and then lost his job when the article was dug up years later.

Unfortunately, a large number of people are relying on online services to communicate, which has undermined many of the anonymity technologies that were developed in the 90s. The network effects of systems like Facebook and Google+ should not be ignored -- people who want to stay off of those systems may be forced to use those systems just to stay in touch with their friends.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-21 05:49 · Score: 1

This is modded Insightful? Ehm, google is an ad seller. Google/double click here wants your real name because google wants to know who you are. They don't care if you "behave", whatever that means.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by Adrian+Lopez · 2011-08-21 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Google's right to set the terms under which it provides its services is not in dispute, but the fact that Google has the right to do what it's doing doesn't mean its actions are therefore beyond legitimate criticism. In a world increasingly dominated by corporate interests, having corporations behave in a manner consistent with the ideals of a free society is far better than the alternative.

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by AthanasiusKircher · 2011-08-21 07:01 · Score: 2

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.
You present a false dichotomy. Pseudonymity is different from anonymity. Real names are not the only solution.
There are problems on the internet greater than in real life. But people have walked into neighborhood bars all the time, had group conversations, even pontificated to an audience -- without having to flash a government ID badge on the way in. And their comments weren't recorded in a way connected with their real ID, so that everything they said at the bar was under review by their employer and spouse, and everything they said in their bedroom with their spouse was open to people at the bar and at church.
We may not need anonymity. But real life depends on multiple identities. Pseudonyms on the internet already solve many problems that true anonymity creates. But it also allows people to have the same sort of multiple identities that they have in real life.
There are various ways to deal with such issues that don't require real names to be posted all the time. If this is a move toward Google+ offering the option of both verified "real names" and pseudonym accounts (for those who want them), that's a real positive.
For a social network that claims it solves the Facebook problem of allowing you to easily choose what information about you is visible to what group of people, having to use your real name with all people is a real problem.
If on the other hand, Google is still going to insist on real names for everyone anyway, this makes no difference.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-21 07:02 · Score: 1

They can get over it or not use the service. It's not Google's job to maintain their lifestyle for them, particularly when it's all fear-based. And I get there's a "reason" for the fear, but hiding never fixed anything ever.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by Bieeanda · 2011-08-21 08:00 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
A part that shows that the 'theory' is bunk. It's not anonymity that allows and encourages people to be assholes on-line. People are assholes to each other on the highway, on the sidewalk, in the schoolyard and in the home. The only difference that the Internet makes is that it's harder to get back at them. You can't take a swing at someone over TCP/IP. If they're being an asshole from across state lines, or even from across the city, are you really likely to track them down and confront them about what they said about your daughter?
As for being banned from services, forums and the like-- come on. Most of the time it's not a matter of repeat offenders sneaking back in, it's the insane ratio of users to admins, complicated by huge numbers of users and the often spurious complaints they generate per day. Look at Facebook: the amount of TOS-violating shit (including illegalities, sexism, racism and other things we pretend don't happen in polite society) that slurps through their pipes on a daily basis is virtually incalculable. Does Jimmy Crackerfuck really care that somebody is offended by how much he hates Latinos and East Indians? No. Hell, he may even get off on the attention.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by Znork · 2011-08-21 08:12 · Score: 1

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.
Behaving is a function of the group, it's not an objective standard. A religious fundamentalist on an atheist forum will be considered a troll by many and vice versa. A closed forum doesn't care who you are as long as you have a persistent identity that can be ignored.
Enforcing public identities creates a situation wherein information appropriate to one forum interacts with and risks ending up in forums where that information is not appropriate.
Google+ realized the importance of being able to steer information to appropriate channels, but it underestimates the need that anyone not among the most boring personalities may have for segmenting information and identity as appropriate for varying circumstances and social groups.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by GORby_ · 2011-08-21 09:23 · Score: 1

Well, I do post on google plus using my real name, and I don't know why that should be a problem. I just use something else if I want to remain more or less anonymous.
Google plus is a tool that I use to share information with friends, family and acquaintances who already know my name. I'm relatively careful about the things I post on the Internet, and don't think I would or should be ashamed about anything I ever said online.
I've never seen any compromising pictures pop up on the net (at least not with me on them).
I agree that google knows a lot about me, but as long as they don't share any of this information with third parties and just use it to give me better targeted ads, I'm al for it. Ads are what makes large part of the Internet possible without having to pay for almost everything, so better ads make them more money and are less of a nuisance for me (yes I sometimes see an ad that's interesting yes I tend to click on it if that's the case)
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by bonch · 2011-08-21 11:25 · Score: 2

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.
This argument never stops being ridiculous. If a Google+ user wanted to restrict comments to posts from verified-only accounts, Google easily could provide that feature.
Google's requirement of real names has absolutely nothing to do with preventing trolling. It's so they can verify that the personal data they're selling to advertisers is legitimate and justify the prices they charge for it. Their motives are purely self-serving.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by BradleyUffner · 2011-08-21 13:20 · Score: 2

You present a false dichotomy. Pseudonymity is different from anonymity. Real names are not the only solution.
.
It's the solution that google choose for THEIR website. If you think one of the other solutions would work better, feel free to start your own website. No one forced anyone to use Google+. I like using my real name, and like seeing the real names of others I choose to communicate with. You will notice that I use my real name when posting here on Slashdot too.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by bartyboy · 2011-08-21 14:40 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, if online anonymity goes away, free speech will suffer.

No, only anonymous speech will suffer. Free speech does not require the speaker to be anonymous - in fact, it works because speech is protected even though the speaker can be identified. Anonymous quotes can't have retribution.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by betterunixthanunix · 2011-08-21 15:15 · Score: 1

That worked really well for Ward Churchill, right? The courts even found that his free speech rights had been violated, and granted him a full dollar -- one dollar.

There is the ideal world, where people respect each other's rights, and then there is the real world, where people sometimes need to be ever so slightly proactive in protecting their own rights.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by Corbets · 2011-08-21 15:38 · Score: 1

The network effects of systems like Facebook and Google+ should not be ignored -- people who want to stay off of those systems may be forced to use those systems just to stay in touch with their friends.
Nobody is forcing you to use those services, or forcing you to keep in touch with friends. You make a decision to do so.
Despite being a rather avid Facebook user myself, I have many friends who do not use it, and somehow, despite 8000 kilometers separating us, we still manage to keep in touch.
Re:Ah, a "ME" generation kid by lonecrow · 2011-08-21 18:35 · Score: 1

I really don't understand your complaint about people complaining. If otherwise happy customers didn't complain when new policies are introduced that they don't like then the company would be robbed of important feedback. If a company I don't like does something else that I don't like I probably wouldn't post message about how terrible their new policies is. But if you really want to use their services but there new policy is making you really mad, well then the company probably wants to hear about it.

So quite your bitching about other people bitching.

In the NOT so distant future.... by arcite · 2011-08-21 04:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!

Re:In the NOT so distant future.... by ZankerH · 2011-08-21 05:40 · Score: 1

ME GUSTA
Re:In the NOT so distant future.... by RobbieThe1st · 2011-08-21 09:31 · Score: 1

Sounds interesting! Where do I sign up? :P

I for one welcome our new Social Media Overlords!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-21 04:44 · Score: 1

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.

Google Hypocrisy by TrueSatan · 2011-08-21 04:44 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Our way or the highway by nurb432 · 2011-08-21 04:47 · Score: 2

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 ----

Re:Our way or the highway by ScrewMaster · 2011-08-21 04:52 · Score: 1

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.
That's a good idea. I hear there's this thing called "Facebook" ...

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Our way or the highway by nurb432 · 2011-08-21 04:58 · Score: 1

I meant that in a general sense, not specific so this would also include gmail, gdocs, market, etc. Too bad you cant easily uncouple android from those services.
Time for an open distributed search engine too. ( tho that might already exist.. )

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Our way or the highway by BradleyUffner · 2011-08-21 13:33 · Score: 1

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.
I'm one of their "customers", and I like their real name policy. It's not like the users were tricked in to joining and giving out their real name. Everyone who joins know what they are signing up for.

All the celebrities by Yaa+101 · 2011-08-21 04:49 · Score: 2

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...

Re:please stand up by davester666 · 2011-08-21 04:56 · Score: 1

And I verified it!

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!

On the (small) plus side... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-21 04:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

Re:On the (small) plus side... by Opportunist · 2011-08-21 05:12 · Score: 1

Well, you are quite anonymous towards most other people. Not law enforcement, but the average Joe out there cannot really determine where you're coming from, and even if he gets your IP address, it doesn't readily give him a real address or a name to it. For pretty much everything that doesn't allow the other side to call the ISP or law enforcement into the game, de facto anonymity exists. Of course you are not, and have never been, completely anonymous, untrackable for anyone, but that's not even required for most things.
Take /. Here, all I know about you is that you're going by the handle of fuzzyfuzzyfungus. And all you know about me is that I'm using the handle Opportunist. That doesn't tell anyone anything about either of us. Neither age, nor sex, nor location. Of course, /. and every ISP involved can easily find our IP addresses and, if there is a good reason, it would also be possible for them to find our real IDs that go with them. You, me, and everyone else reading here can't really find out who either of us are.
And that's generally a pretty good thing. Given the peer pressure and society's norms, it's not really easy for people to discuss topics that are embarrassing or are viewed as "immoral" in some circles they may belong to, without anonymity. Note that we're not dealing with illegal topics here, just things people wouldn't want everyone to know. I am pretty sure a lot of gay teens find that the internet is a godsend.
This said, the public isn't squeamish. Most people hand over their personal information without thinking twice. Personally, as someone who knows unfortunately far too well what can be done with this information, it's hard to understand how careless one can be.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:On the (small) plus side... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-21 08:49 · Score: 1

It is a much bigger change in that respect, as you say.(A delight, no doubt, to everyone with a potentially-homicidal psycho ex, hypersensitive employer, or school whose admins treat it as axiomatic that every red cup contains booze...) I'm not even one of those, and I still think that the trend is not a good one. Alias stability is useful(ie. short of breaking my password, nobody can impersonate 'fuzzyfuzzyfungus' on slashdot), so it is possible to assign consistent evaluations to aliases; but the case for tying people to Real Legal Name is substantially weaker and has a much longer list of people who will definitely see a significant cost, aside from important but somewhat nebulous 'privacy' considerations.

There is also the issue, not as large as "average joe", but substantially smaller than "Google, Facebook, Acxiom, and the NSA", of the fairly substantial number of people who have some degree of greater-than-average-joe Big Brother access. There are a lot of cops, HR background-checkers, and buddies thereof out there, and (while they generally aren't supposed to, and occasionally get fired for) they often have more than usual access unless somebody catches them abusing it.

My only hope is that, by pushing the issue in people's faces, they end up raising awareness about how much privacy is on the rocks at present, with no signs of future improvement. In particular, while it doesn't take a genius to guess how Google might infer that "fuzzyfuzzyfungus" probably isn't a real name, I hope that those who tried the "I'll just sign up with a plausible sounding fake name/nickname" gambit and end up being detected spend some quality time thinking about what their detection implies.

People who used to be F-wads by tepples · 2011-08-21 04:59 · Score: 1

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.

Re:People who used to be F-wads by Mindcontrolled · 2011-08-21 05:43 · Score: 2

And people searching forums can see what a pimple you were six years ago and confuse this with your present personality.
Around here, in Real Life (TM), we call realizing that fact "Growing up".

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Real Real Names by v(*_*)vvvv · 2011-08-21 05:01 · Score: 1

So, does everyone get a badge? They claim they have a real name policy, yet only those with real real names get badges.

So... this is the "better Facebook"? by Opportunist · 2011-08-21 05:03 · Score: 1

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.

Re:So... this is the "better Facebook"? by Red_Chaos1 · 2011-08-21 06:51 · Score: 1

Clearly you haven't tried Google+ or you'd know how it was better than Facebook. But hey, go ahead and jerk your knees and waive your arms and say G+ is crappy all because you heard something on the Internet.
Re:So... this is the "better Facebook"? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-21 07:06 · Score: 1

Slow down, fanboy. "Better" is a subjective term, and your opinions aren't measurably superior to any others outside of your head.
Re:So... this is the "better Facebook"? by BradleyUffner · 2011-08-21 13:36 · Score: 1

Slow down, fanboy. "Better" is a subjective term, and your opinions aren't measurably superior to any others outside of your head.
The OP asked how Google+ was better than facebook. All he did was answer his question (using the OP's own words). It sounds like you need to direct your rage twords OP, not the Parent Post
Re:So... this is the "better Facebook"? by Opportunist · 2011-08-21 13:43 · Score: 1

Actually, he did not. I asked how it's better and he said "it is". That's not really an answer to my question. It's like asking "how did your grandma die" and getting the reply "she is dead".
Postulating something as a fact does not explain it, unless the fact objectively does. "X is better" is no objective fact without the qualifier explaining just HOW it is better.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:So... this is the "better Facebook"? by BradleyUffner · 2011-08-21 13:52 · Score: 1

Actually, he did not. I asked how it's better and he said "it is". That's not really an answer to my question. It's like asking "how did your grandma die" and getting the reply "she is dead".
Postulating something as a fact does not explain it, unless the fact objectively does. "X is better" is no objective fact without the qualifier explaining just HOW it is better.
ok, so maybe he didn't answer it "correctly", but the main point of your post was that he used the word "Better", which was the exact language used by the person he was replying to.
Re:So... this is the "better Facebook"? by BradleyUffner · 2011-08-21 13:56 · Score: 1

Where exactly is Google+ better than Facebook?
I don't have to interact with people named "AssMonkey98" on Google+.

Right to be anonymous by Jazari · 2011-08-21 05:04 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Right to be anonymous by nurb432 · 2011-08-21 06:21 · Score: 1

yes a private entity has that right.. but we also have the right to bitch and moan about it.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

who cares? by CPE1704TKS · 2011-08-21 05:06 · Score: 1

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.

Re:who cares? by BradleyUffner · 2011-08-21 13:38 · Score: 1

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.
Yes. I do, and a lot of my friends and family do as well. From looking at their android app and it's "Nearby" feature, it looks like a lot of people near me use it also. I'm not exactly in a hugely populated area either.

Google+ Verification Badge by cknicker · 2011-08-21 05:09 · Score: 1

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.

Google.com is anonymous - should it be revoked? by theodp · 2011-08-21 05:12 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Closing the trap by J'raxis · 2011-08-21 05:21 · Score: 1

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

Re:Closing the trap by NuShrike · 2011-08-21 08:10 · Score: 1

It's metaphorical, but ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Privacy and Anonymity Left The Building... by blahblahwoofwoof · 2011-08-21 05:34 · Score: 1

...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.

Twitter said the same thing... by ryanmcdonough · 2011-08-21 05:39 · Score: 1

a year on and I still haven't got my verified profile as a general member of the public.

Google still not verifying businesses by Animats · 2011-08-21 05:41 · Score: 2

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.

Badges? by TeknoHog · 2011-08-21 05:54 · Score: 1

We don't need no stinkin' badges!

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.

NOTHING about this appears to be mandatory by MattskEE · 2011-08-21 06:12 · Score: 1

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.

Re: Baaaaa by fyngyrz · 2011-08-21 07:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:please stand up by ColdWetDog · 2011-08-21 07:16 · Score: 3, Funny

show us your badge!

We don't need no stinking badgers.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Who verifies the verifiers? by NuShrike · 2011-08-21 07:34 · Score: 2

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.

We're past 1984? by RobinEggs · 2011-08-21 07:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:We're past 1984? by hedwards · 2011-08-21 09:08 · Score: 1

Um, dude, 1984 was like 27 years ago. We're way past 1984.
Re:We're past 1984? by MobyDisk · 2011-08-21 09:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
I know what you mean, but think about what they have instead. With the Orwell version, someone had to constantly monitor those screens and listen-in on people. Today, a computer program can scan conversations everywhere automatically because those conversations are already transcribed into text. There could be a program scanning Slashdot right now looking for keywords. In some ways, a telescreen is more acceptable because then someone had to decide they had a reason to monitor someone, then assign someone the full-time 24-hour-a-day job of doing it.

And yes, I read the book. Four times
That's a good example. Somewhere, somehow, a computer can now figure that out. But to determine that via a telescreen would require someone to spend years reviewing tapes, tracking your every move.
Re:We're past 1984? by RobinEggs · 2011-08-21 10:03 · Score: 1

Yeah, I guess you could argue that many types of surveillance rival those of 1984 in penetration and effectiveness, all while being less obtrusive.That's probably a good point.

I do feel that many conspiracy minded folks miss an important point, however. Government surveillance isn't new or particularly surprising; power corrupts, and sooner or later all governments come to believe they have legitimacy unto themselves rather than legitimacy granted by citizens. Sooner or later all governments intrude heavily in public life, whether it's citizen-supported acts of decency like universal healthcare and strict labor protections or massive pro-corporate economic manipulation in the name of small government or Gestapo.

Highly involved, highly curious government isn't very scary most of the time, though.

The real terror of 1984, however, was the sharp division between those who didn't care one way or another and those who actually liked the degree of control and surveillance imposed on them. Those were the only camps allowed to exist. Today, we don't show too many serious signs that the vocal minority who do care about privacy are withering away or being effectively oppressed, in my opinion, and I also think the number of people dumb enough to prefer heavy surveillance is much smaller than in 1984.

We're also doing a pretty good job overall of resisting the "everybody watch your neighbor" bullshit, and that's what worries me a lot more than technological surveillance and what I meant to reference with the turning in your parents thing. The number of random Arabic-looking people beaten or harassed since 9/11 is really surprisingly small, for example, considering the number of skinheads and paranoid Republicans we have. It still happens, along with train watchers and other hobbyists being harassed by idiots and the entire department of Homeland Security and completely batshit transportation policies, but even all of that really isn't so bad for the sort of incidents that supposedly herald our descent into an Orwellian nightmare. It sucks, but it's hardly Oceania.

Maybe it will get worse (and I'm sure someone is already writing their vicious rebuttal, attacking me for not noticing the growing conspiracies and looking skyward away from the slippery slope on which we stand on), but today isn't that bad.
Re:We're past 1984? by turbidostato · 2011-08-21 10:44 · Score: 1

"You can make some good comparisons here, no doubt, but it's pure idiocy to say we've gone past 1984."
Truly. The way has been for quite a long time not "1984" but "Brave New World".
Re:We're past 1984? by MobyDisk · 2011-08-21 14:11 · Score: 1

We're also doing a pretty good job overall of resisting the "everybody watch your neighbor" bullshit
Good point - it kinda was going that way after 9/11. The "Terrorist alert" stuff and the electronic roadway signs telling us to report suspicious activity kinda scare me. Hmmm... the guy in the car next to me is wearing some funny shoes... And I think you might be right about America's tolerance. I don't know. It might depend a lot on where you are. Perhaps Arabic-looking people know where not to go?
Sometimes I think about what it is to be a patriot: is a patriot someone who loves their country and follows it to the end? Or someone who considers it their duty to stand up to their government? I think you helped me form my new definition. A patriot is someone who loves their country enough to try and fix it.

Re:I hear they will also stick a chip in your ass by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2011-08-21 08:14 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Nonsense. The chip will record your movements in real time.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

The mark on your skin will identify you by Snaller · 2011-08-21 08:23 · Score: 1

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

Sing it! by BlackHawk-666 · 2011-08-21 08:33 · Score: 1

"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.

How can this possibly scale? by aegl · 2011-08-21 08:46 · Score: 1

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?

Someone has done it before in Germany by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2011-08-21 08:47 · Score: 1

Certain people have to wear a badge during late 1930's.

--
New Economic Perspectives

OpenPGP isn't broken by Sloppy · 2011-08-21 08:48 · Score: 1

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.

Guard Your Innards by BlackHawk-666 · 2011-08-21 08:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Guard Your Innards by Chrisq · 2011-08-21 20:27 · Score: 1

Anything you find on these two searches is likely to be true
Not for long - cue blackhawk-66 shags sheep page.
Re:Guard Your Innards by CSMoran · 2011-08-21 23:22 · Score: 1

Pics or it didn't happen.

--
Every end has half a stick.
Re:Guard Your Innards by ultranova · 2011-08-22 04:06 · Score: 1

Are the rumours that blk-665 is a child molester also true? I mean, if you stupidly let your real adress be connected with the alias and someone were to say that bl-665 watches kiddy porn when he's not high on cannabis making threats about the president involving nuclear anthrax fertilizer bombs, it could be bad, right?
Simply because you aren't doing anything questionable doesn't mean that someone else couldn't easily make it seem like you did, and since it seems to be fashionable to play a psychopath online nowadays, I'd be extremely wary of letting my real identity and my online identites connect in any way.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

Was gonna ask "You are new here, right?"... by denzacar · 2011-08-21 09:36 · Score: 2, Informative

... 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 honestly don't see the problem? by flimflammer · 2011-08-21 09:49 · Score: 1

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.

Re: Baaaaa by bonch · 2011-08-21 11:31 · Score: 1

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.

Thank God you have Google Plus! by tkprit · 2011-08-21 13:47 · Score: 1

+Fuck

Re:Don't be silly! by martin-boundary · 2011-08-21 15:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, but how do you know it's a corp, and not some slacker who just put that address in there :)

Re:please stand up by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-08-21 17:55 · Score: 1

All you other Mark Zuckerbergs are just imitating.

Re:please stand up by Meski · 2011-08-21 18:21 · Score: 1

bitch!

Re:please stand up by justforgetme · 2011-08-21 18:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think that the Internet has worked and evolved quite fine without a Fascist governor screening, tagging and branding you.

--
-- no sig today

In Soviet US Google Verifies You by Hyperhaplo · 2011-08-21 19:18 · Score: 1

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.

Re: Baaaaa by Delusion_ · 2011-08-21 19:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:How is this different from GPG? by Chrisq · 2011-08-21 20:28 · Score: 1

Is it just me....

I don't know - please show us your google badge and I'll tell you

Re:I hear they will also stick a chip in your ass by Chrisq · 2011-08-21 20:39 · Score: 1

I hear they will also stick a chip in your ass so their street view cars can identify you!

You could be exempt, you obviously already have a chip on your shoulder.

Re:How is this different from GPG? by Chrisq · 2011-08-21 20:42 · Score: 1

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.

Seriously this could be an option for them to have the "best of both". If they lighten up on the "real user" requirement but give you the option of a real user ID and a badge, allow filtering of lists to show verified people only then they could keep everyone happy.

Re:Violet Blue booted from G+ using her real name by makomk · 2011-08-21 21:47 · Score: 1

Obviously Violet Blue is either not famous enough or not pro-Google enough for Google's liking; they're quite happy to not only allow celebrities to register under the fake-sounding psedonyms (not even actual names!) that they're known by, but even to verify them. I'm guessing not pro-Google enough personally.

Future uses by hmmm · 2011-08-21 22:18 · Score: 1

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.

Re:please stand up by kilfarsnar · 2011-08-22 06:40 · Score: 1

Haven't we all, at some point?

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)

Re: Baaaaa by Zen+Punk · 2011-08-22 08:10 · Score: 1

I lean strongly libertarian

You don't say?

--
Sleep is futile.

HAHAHA! Hilarious! by denzacar · 2011-08-22 13:41 · Score: 1

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

Slashdot Mirror

Google Launches Identity Verification Badge Scheme

167 of 241 comments (clear)