Slashdot Mirror
Vint Cerf: Google Shouldn't Require Real Names
An anonymous reader writes "In an interview with Reuters, 'father of the internet' Vint Cerf spoke about Google's past push for requiring real names from their users — a stance they later backed down from after public outcry. Google+ and many other services work just fine with pseudonyms, Cert says, and it's better to let users pick the option that works best for them. 'Using real names is useful. But I don't think it should be forced on people, and I don't think we do.' That said, he also firmly believes some services do need true identities from both sides: 'Anonymity and pseudonymity are perfectly reasonable under some situations. But there are cases where in the transactions both parties really need to know who are we talking to. So what I'm looking for is not that we shut down anonymity, but rather that we offer an option when needed that can strongly authenticate who the parties are.' Still, the matter of pseudonyms on Google+ seems to be settled internally, at least for the moment. Cerf said, 'There was a debate on this subject and it was resolved. ... Our conclusion was that choice is important.'"
If that even is his real name. I mean, "Vint"? Seriously?
can you change your name in Google+?
I mean, wasn't this already obvious?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
...unless they are trying to hide something, maybe? Signed, Anita Bath
www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
The value of anonymity is in the ability to express ideas that are not necessarily socially acceptable, but are contributions to our ongoing resolution of social questions.
When Google starts trying to "civilize" the internet by requiring real names, it's forcing us to associate our free speech with our jobs, families and others who may face retaliation if our ideas are not socially acceptable.
.. but what Google gives out with one hand, it takes back with the other: nowadays increasingly one cannot open a google account without a valid cellphone numbr for verification- and do not forget all the profiling that happens regardless if one is logged in or not.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Well, not really. The folks who like to launch personal attacks get pretty worked up about it when you post AC and they use a "real" name like "Frosty Piss".
Bud is not my real name, it's not on my birth certificate, or any official ID. Yet that's what everybody calls me every day in real life, and nobody has any problem with it. But go online, and suddenly it's some kind of major issue that I'm "hiding" behind a pseudonym. Nobody seems to get bent out of shape over Mark Twain's use of a 'fake name', etc.
Now that Google requires real names, my name is iujn4iutneroiugjoirgj. (Sometimes I use alternate nicknames such as oim5yo4590rejg09ojog5.)
I refused to sign up for Google+ all because of the required real name... I was afraid my Gmail account could possibly get canceled on me for not following their rules. Now I look forward to creating a G+ account and using a nickname that friends will know me by, but my boss and coworkers will not be able to search for =D
http://nymrights.org/
Google employee has declared that the most recent decision made by Google is the correct one.
The Google employee does not accept that the previous Google policy was a mistake, however the methods Google used to force the previous Google policy on users where inefffective.
Google should be able to require people's real names, their cell phone numbers, their addresses, and scanned copies of their social security cards if they want to. I no longer care what they do.
Damn that's a cold-ass honkey
what -- thats my real last name ...
comment directly in my journal
Fuck them...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is the reason I don't use Google+ I have active pages with more than a million users in facebook, opened an account for Google+ when it came out, but I freaked out when I read about them banning users for not using their real names, even losing all other associated google accounts (AdSense, especially). No way I am willing to use Google+ along with AdSense if I sense that in any way something as trivial as using whatever fake name I want can create problems with my account. And hence, another website, with millions of traffic and social followers, does not even promote G+. Just a grain of sand, but I'm sure I'm not the only one. OK, So now, they no longer require this "real name", but even so, your other accounts are not independent. Being banned for any reason (I really never should be, never had any problems in facebook for example, but you never know) would result in ban from gmail and AdSense. If not so, that's the impression I have, and reason I still keep away (even if they probably changed policies). I need to be really certain I will never have such things in danger before I even touch or activate G+ again.
and that's why I don't have a Google+ account yet... but of course that kind of news doesn't generally make headlines. Was the initial policy a suggestion from a middle-manager?
Does this mean google is going to stop trying to get me to change my youtube username to my "real" name?
I swear, I've told google to take a flying leap about it five times already. I'm getting hot under the collar just thinking about it.
You should turn signatures off.
You can use a pseudonym on G+ anyhow. I know a lot of people who don't post under their actual name... As long as it sounds like a name you can use it.
The only reason Google wants real names is because they want Google+ to be able to provide real ID cards and other stuff that only a government agency could have provided before. In that way they are competing with Facebook, soon Facebook will be possibly able to give people the status of "married", for instance, people will be able to get married on Facebook and they will be taken seriously.
I know of at least seven other people with the same first and last name as me. One of them has published scientific papers in the same field as I have. One works in the same industry as me. Yet another has a similar hobby as me. Yet another of them is a rapist.
I know this, because people have confused me with them. I have received mail, both physical letters and emails that were intended for them.
I'd rather use my handle than my real name, because then people will not confuse me with any of the other guys. My handle is practically unique.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Dear Google,
Please create a mechanism for attaching public encryption keys to Google accounts. Other users can sign your key to signify that they trust your identity. The web of trust among users can be generated in a similar way to PageRanking, with the most-validated users offering the greatest amount of "trust" per connection (and multiple trust layers!).
Cordially,
AC
There is only one reason Google+ and Facebook want real names: advertisers pay more when you know the names of the people you are delivering the ads to.
Minority Report: "Hey John Anderton, you could use a Guiness right about now!"
I backed out of all their services when they tried to pull this "real names" crap on me. ... and said to themselves " we need some of that"
They saw how horrible the fcebook user-details for cash scheme is
How they thought that was competitive I'll never know. "just as nasty and intrusive as the other guys, but with more of your search history". Oh yeah. Lovely.
Take some time to go read what Yonatan Zunger has written about names. He appears to have a pretty good idea of how important it is to people to have their chosen names recognized. He talks about things like how the appeals process should "start a dialogue", and so on.
What actually happens:
I've appealed a couple of times. There is no process in any part of the appeal to permit me to submit even a single sentance of explanation for why I feel a given thing is or is not my name. All I can submit is scanned documents or web pages. Could those be things I wrote? We don't know, but if they've ever checked the one I tried submitting, I have no knowledge of it.
When your appeal is denied, there is no explanation. There is not a single sentence in the boilerplate letter that goes out which says in what way their determination was reached, or what they thought of the evidence, or even whether they looked at the evidence. The appeal comes from a no-replies-accepted address. There is no identification of who it was who sent the message, there is nothing given to permit followups. Your sole option is to retry the appeal.
If you appeal a second time, the appeal can be ignored for months. Not denied, not approved, just ignored completely. I eventually went and posted on one of their help forums asking for information. I was told by someone I think was claiming to be a Google employee that there was an absolute requirement that all names must have a first and last name. This is, of course, not actually true -- there are counterexamples. The policy says that names will usually be a first and last name, but stops short of requiring them. Except, of course, if you're just some random guy, in which case, it's a requirement.
I go by "seebs". That is the name I am commonly known by in daily life. It is the name used to address me and to refer to me, by my coworkers, by my friends, by my spouse, by my lawyer. My mom doesn't use "seebs" all the time, but she does sometimes. If I'm in a mall, and I hear someone yelling the name on my driver's license, I'm unlikely to look, because usually that means someone else.
The underlying issue is that they have some evidence that some people feel "uncomfortable" when they enter a social community and some people have handles which are not "real names". The Google policy, they claim, is not to require that the name be a real name, only that it look like a real name, because that makes some people less nervous. However, it is not at all obvious to me that this justifies the insulting, arrogant, and dismissive way that Google has handled the appeals process.
The gap between what they actually do and what Mr. Zunger describes is disturbing, because he's nominally in charge. I don't know what's up. Are his blog posts not actually what he thinks? Are the employees unaware of the stated intent of policy? Does no one at Google have the technical know-how to allow an employee evaluating an appeal to send an email to the person whose name is under discussion? It seems like a simple email or two saying "I looked at this, and here's why I don't think this looks like good evidence that this is the name you're commonly known by" could go a fair way towards solving this.
Of course, so could just accepting that the name I want to be known by is probably the only name you can use without being arrogant and insulting.
The whole process makes it very clear that Google's employees are much more valuable than the prospective users of their social network. The overall impression I get is that they would much rather all the weird people just stayed off their network, so they could save valuable engineering and support time, and just not have to deal with us. I have in the past observed that the impression I get is that they would be happier if all the people with weird names, or who are unwilling to use their legal names (say, trans people who haven't done their name change yet), would just go away. Or die. Whatever, so long as the problem that a minority of p
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Youtube constantly pesters me about using my real name. How many times do I have to say no?
So why am I still getting those annoying "give us your name" popups on YT?
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Fuck Google+ and fuck Facebook.
Anyone with true intelligence has better things to do than mess with this shit.
stopped using facebook years back over privacy, then hollywood people start infiltrating g+ and ruined it NOW they want to ruin my privacy again...not been back in a while when its done , thats it ... no more big name places to be used tired of big business and govt up my butt. AND IM NO TEA BAGGER RICH PRICK.
Two days ago i got an email with a warning of a google+ account suspension for using a "fake" name. The fake name is the name of a local community organization. The google+ account was connected to a google apps for business account. Hence not a private account. Had to opt to delete the google+ profile. I guess facebook is the only option to complement our website to give out news and information to our community members.
Well, since the purpose of a name is to interact with other people, it is more accurate to say that your name is what other people call you. If 'Bud' is what everybody calls you every day in 'real life', then that is you real name.
Now is maybe a good time to post the link to the falsehoods that people[programmers] believe about names.
It's quite normal to have multiple names: one of my relatives was called by one name by half the family and another name by the other half. Was one of those names not her 'real' name?
If I am known by a nym in a community---a community that I interact with only using that name, then that is my name----in that community.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
My Google+ account still forces me to use a full name and has language which demands that I use a real full name.
I can not hide this from profile, so... tell us how Google allows people to avoid full names.
Every few days on YouTube, it prompts me with a recommendation that I use my real name. Then when tell it no, it asks me why I don't want to use my real name.
I am not for a real name policy, but I do want the problems with using real names to be solved if possible.
In theory, the language merely strongly suggests a full name, and you should be able to pick a different name and file an appeal showing that it's your intended name. Obviously, they don't actually do that.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
So what if he helped shape TCP/IP, he doesn't own the fucking internet, nor should he be treated as a go-to guy for moral issues surrounding how the internet operates. He's just an old hack who gets by on his claim to fame, whose really nothing more than a corporate/government bigwig.
to choose anonymity is a great thing, to have it shoved it down you throat is another. If I choose to utilize the "internet" as myself(keithgirvan@verizon.net, or keithgirvan@live.com), without avatars, aliases, noms de plume, then I have that right. anonymity should be a right, not forced. for those who want another online "life" great, yet... hmmm remember DARPA, and the origins, exchange of information amongst scholars not willing to wait for us postal...once again keithgirvan@verizon.net or keithgirvan@live.com
Unfortunatly, we don't live in a free world.
In this world there are governments (both ones own and others), that will happily use every little bit of information that one puts on the internet against one.
Never mind that ones employment contract possibly says that they can fire you for saying anything negative about them on the internet, having the wrong political views, and so on.
In an ideal world this would not be a problem, so once we have a "free world"... I'll be all for a "real name" name requirement.
When they kept bothering me I used Luther Blisset.
http://www.lutherblissett.net/
Now I just don't use google anymore as I consider them to be like the Stasi in furry suits. They try to be all warm and fuzzy but they're actually deeply, evil sociopaths.
Everytime I log in to YouTube I get pestered to use my real name with the only optout being to 'ask me again later'
Now I can't review Android apps because
I do not want to join google +, I've had enough, any recommendations for a good email provider for my secondary account (primary is family and trusted only)
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
With qualification, agreed. The qualification being that it depends to what legal jurisdiction you're talking about. In some countries, your "real" name may be defined by law. In others, it's definitively not. I know that Japan, for example, has naming laws (and anyone wanting to take naturalized Japanese citizenship will find themselves having to decide on what their Japanese name is to be). By contrast I'm English, and under English common law dating back hundreds of years, my "name" is simply whatever I am usually known as. If I decide I want to be known differently, I can enact a deed of poll to formally announce the fact (for the convenience of my peers and for personal ease of interaction with, e.g., government agencies and the banks - who don't care what I'm called, but care very much that they're sure that I am indeed whom I claim to be) - but doing so is not in any way a legal requirement. As you point out, therefore, and in English law at least, a name I choose for myself for the express purpose of on-line use, is no less real than any other by which I'm known in other contexts.