Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vint Cerf: Google Shouldn't Require Real Names

Posted by Soulskill on from the statement-of-intent dept.

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.'"

5 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Of course says "Vint Cerf" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If that even is his real name. I mean, "Vint"? Seriously?

  2. The value of anonymity by concealment · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The value of anonymity by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Google has no authority, and is not trying, to civilize "the internet". It's trying to apply those policies to its own services, and it has every right to do so. Doing so isn't "forcing" you to associate your name with your speech, unless you are somehow compelled to use Google's services. And in the arena where this applies (social networking) Google isn't even particularly dominant.

      The thing about the internet is that it's not some uniform monolith. There is plenty of space for both pseudonymous and real-name services - if you don't like a service that requires real names, use one that allows pseudonyms. You don't have to force every service on the internet to conform to your ideas as to how the internet should operate - doing so is far more of an attempt to "civilize the internet" than what Google's doing.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  3. My handle is more unique than my real name by Misagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  4. Re:Still freaked out for that policy... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the reason I don't use Google+ I have active pages with more than a million users in facebook,..

    Wait... facebook?! The other massive site with the real name policy? The one showing people their friends profiles and asking "Is that their real name?"

    That is the site you prefer to use?

    "Facebook is a community where people use their real identities. We require everyone to provide their real names, so you always know who you're connecting with."
    http://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576/

    Being banned for any reason (I really never should be, never had any problems in facebook for example, but you never know)

    Yeah, you never know, i mean you are just violating their Real Name policy. I'm sure I can't think of a reason you would ever be banned. Nobody has ever been banned from facebook for being in violation of the real name policy there.

    I mean, they only banned famous (infamous?) author Salman Rushdie for registering as Salman Rushdie. Clearly that's not his real name so, they banned him, and when he complained they reinstated him as Ahmed Rushdie, since his passport says his first name is Ahmed. It took a bit of a media frenzy on the event for facebook to buckle and let him be Salman Rushdie on facebook.

    But hey, Google is the company that had a real name policy and banned people over it, and then caved and dropped it, while facebook is the company that HAS a real name policy, recently fought a court case in Germany to keep it, and bans people who violate it... and so therefore:

    You stuck with facebook, and will never touch G+ again.

    Yes, that makes perfect sense.