Slashdot Mirror
The Phantoms of Google+
theodp writes "Engadget reports that Google wants a patent on its System and Method for Generating a Ghost Profile for a Social Network. The brainchild of five Googlers, the invention is designed to convert anti-social-networking types to the joys of Google+ and its ilk. From the patent: 'A problem arises when users of social networks are friends with people that are opposed to social networks. The second group misses out on an important social component. For example, many users only share their photos on a social networking site. As a result, users that do not want to join the social network are forced to either join with reservations or miss out on the social component, such as viewing pictures.' By generating an unsearchable 'ghost profile' when a member of the social network invites a Google+ adverse friend to join, Google explains, non-believers get to participate in social networking activities without providing user information."
Remind me again why I want to participate in social networking?
This is the biggest / most ridiculous case of "because it's there" in the history of our species.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sounds like a grab to boost G+'s userbase beyond Wil Wheaton and Google engineers.
Not gonna touch Google+ until they get rid of their "real names" policy and I'm not inclined since I've invested so much of my online social life with Facebook.
Do you use your real name on Facebook? Seriously a lot of people complain about the "real name" policy even though they use it openly on Facebook. This may or may not be hypocritical, I suppose if you keep your porn collection on Picasa....
Its part of the urge to centralise.
When we are presented with more distributed services such as email, setting up your own wordpress installation, or IRC server, everyone gives there entire online existence to google, twitter & facebook.
This is better because we are putting more, bigger eggs in the worlds largest basket, which doesn't have keep eggs safe on its agenda
... has done just an excellent job in separating out, among all my friends and acquaintances, those who want me to spend my life looking at their photographs or mouse-clicking through Zynga games. And it largely segregates them.
Works for me.
As a result, users that do not want to join the social network are forced to either join with reservations or miss out on the social component, such as viewing pictures.
Why should anyone have to join a social network to view a friend's pictures? The only way this "problem" can exist is when the owners of the social network try to force artificial restrictions on the network.
If I post anything on Facebook - text, pictures, whatever - I can flag it as public, or I can limit access to some arbitrary group. If I want to share photos with someone who's not on Facebook, I will just mark them "public" (in practice, I tend to post my photos elsewhere; but that's beside the point). I can't imagine Google+ doesn't allow this as well - so either their network is artificially restricted in an attempt to force people into some affiliation, or else they are being disingenuous in this patent defense.
#DeleteChrome
I'm not your datapoint and I never will be.
Says who? You? Since when were you the law?
You are valuable data whether you want to be or not.
This includes mail records of you acceptability for certain mail by coalitions (such as vouchers, sports mailing list previews, spam and various other things), insurance, medical, hell, even in some cases "threat level" if you ever hit any flags.
Somebody can sit there on the side of a road, recording you and thousands of others going past in cars, recording said information without your permission.
Want to know why? Because you are on public property.
Despite what you (and many others sadly) think, the internet is public property if it contains 3rd party access. Unless that site is fully-contained within its own domain, you are free to be recorded, marked and scrutinized by whatever, whenever.
As long as that information isn't published to others directly, they are free to manipulate it for whatever nefarious purposes.
Google, nor do most of the hundreds of other advertising agencies, directly identify people in ad networking systems.
So, please, don't worry your head over it. Government-mandated records contain far more information on you than Google could ever hope to get from you.
From your dental health to your shoe-buying habits.
Everyone always calls Britain the Big Brother country, the Police-State. Most governments record these things. Some far more, some far less.
The UK barely even has any CCTV, actually. And most of them in those stupid reports were PRIVATE cameras. The silly thing was making it out like there was a camera in every street corner or something... hilarious if you ask me.
If you are really that paranoid over Google, god forbid you could get access to all your records. Stacks upon stacks of folders on everyone, still recorded on paper in the unlikely event that our entire electrical infrastructures fail and we lose everything. (not sure why "Steve McRobertson bought a candied Apple, milk and bacon in 1978" would be useful for any long-term reasons")
You might as well just fake your death and go live in some random forest, the forests don't care about stalking you. Unless it is those damned forests in horror stories who want to gobble up little children. WHY
And then you get angry at them when they provide you with a way to AVOID giving them information?
/me checks the date
Sunday April 01, @02:58AM
Yeah, it's already begun.
...
You are valuable data whether you want to be or not.
I am intentionally an inaccurate datapoint.
I know I can't control that a lot of information is being collected without my knowledge or consent.
So whenever I do get a choice, I'll provide information that is either inaccurate, ambiguous, or flat out contradictory to what is already known about me.
The more polluted their databases are, the less valuable it is to them, and thus the less influence they have over my life.
At least that's my hypothesis.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Seriously, I don't have any accounts on these networks, and I don't intend to, there is just too much trade of IMHO, for my privacy.....to join up on one of these. I mean, even with a fake name.....they've shown they can figure out who you are with who you associate...etc.
Seriously, I've not missed an even with any of my friends...I've not missed a picture I'd want to see.....
I stil do this weird thing, and see my close friends regularly in meatspace....I call them, I email directly with them, sometimes *gasp* with multiple of us on the same email thread?!?!
This way...the conversation, pics and what-have-you...are just between us and not out for the rest of the world to gawk at, and have corporations (and governments) use all that info to advertise or worse at me.
Seriously....it isn't painful.....I don't miss a thing.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Can you give us a prediction when MySpace is going to die a quick death?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
How does wanting to have real and personal contact with people make them luddites? I didn't think forming and maintaining relationships was something that could become outdated.
People like you are sad and self-centred. The fact that you think you're so important that people are going to be left out validates that. If a friend can't take a couple minutes out of their oh so busy day to contact me personally, then they are no friend at all and I would rather be "left out" of their dealings.
This is the only redeeming value I place in social networks, their existence sometimes helps me to weed out the fake from the real. I haven't gotten to the point of outright rejecting people as friends because they want to use social networks but if someone ever pulled the crap you do, I remove them from my life.
Relationships aren't something that automatically last. They require nurturing and care. If you're too busy to take care of them, they wither and die.
1. all your friends are clueless about the privacy concerns or just don't give a damn for consequences in general.
2. you are the person everyone complains about because he's always too busy playing 'social' rather than BEING social, like actually doing things with his friends.
If you want to bandwagon hop on to every new e-thingie churned out by corpgovX, it's not a huge deal. But please, don't complain if you are judged out of context on information you put up there 10 years ago under completely different life circumstances and cultural status quo. These include judgment by current/potential employers, law enforcement agents, banks, and insurance companies. Just because it's innocuous today does not mean it will always be. I know some people like you, and quite honestly, they're very cavalier about others' personal information, posting pics without permission (fb and google are doing automated face recog or will be soon) and talking about personal issues online for all to see. People like you trade their friends' privacy for personal convenience, and then justify it with little more than a flippant attitude and self-serving arrogance. It's not worth having such people as friends. Using strawman arguments to further your case when pressed does little to bolster the lack of respect you've already engendered.
I'm sure there are lots of situations where personal information ends up public knowledge as a result of normal human interaction, but this is not the same as such data being stored and transmutated in corporate/government databases, accumulating over time, until used by someone who wants control over your behavior in some way, often by misrepresenting facts, much as you've done here.
This G+ thing is a way of forcing those who have conciously opted out to join out of attrition, because now the data will be collected whether they put it there or not. The process will take longer and likely will not be as specific/useful as the accounts owned by morons who post their entire lives online, but the info could still end up damaging. This is true even if it is incorrect because it place the 'ghost' person in a reactionary position of having to fight with the provider to correct it and save face.