Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bennett Haselton: Google+ To Gmail Controversy Missing the Point

Posted by samzenpus on from the read-all-about-it dept.

Bennett Haselton writes "Google created controversy by announcing that Google+ users will now be able to send email to Gmail users even without having those Gmail users' email addresses. I think this debate misses the point, because it's unlikely to create a deluge of unsolicited email to Gmail users, as long as Google can throttle outgoing messages from Google+ users and terminate abusive accounts. The real controversy should be over the fact that Google+ users can search a public database of the names of all Gmail users in the first place. And limiting the ability of Google+ users to write to those Gmail accounts, won't do anything to address that." Read below to see what Bennett has to say.

To begin with, remember that on Facebook (which I no longer use, but which I keep up with) does allow you to search for other members' names and send them messages even if they have not yet accepted your friend request. Facebook users are generally not shy when it comes to complaining about problems with the site, but I've never heard Facebook users complaining about junk messages from strangers. (It's true that if you get a message from a user outside of your friends list, it gets routed to the "Other" folder of your Facebook inbox. But similarly, Google says that messages from strangers on Google+ will get routed to a Gmail user's "Social" tab of the inbox.)

So I expect the amount of actual unsolicited emails from Google+ users to Gmail users to be almost a complete non-issue, for the same reason that it's not an issue on Facebook. I assume the reason that Facebook users get so few junk messages, is that Facebook can limit the number of outgoing messages sent per day by any one account (although I don't know what that limit is), and can shut down accounts that are reported for abuse. Yes, a spammer could continually create new accounts to send more messages, but if you create too many Facebook accounts from the same IP address, and each account created from that IP address gets flagged for abuse, Facebook might start disallowing new accounts created from that IP. You could switch your IP address continually, but at a certain point, spammers must have decided that creating disposable Facebook accounts for spamming purposes wasn't worth the trouble, because the simple fact is that they don't do it. So Gmail users are not in danger of buried in spam from Google+ accounts. (By contrast, conventional email spam grew to unmanageable proportions because anybody with an email server could send out millions of messages per day, unless their provider cut them off.)

On the other hand, I think we should be more concerned about the fact that anyone who creates a Gmail address automatically has a Google+ account created for them. This doesn't just mean that any of Google's claims about the "number of Google+ users" are inflated, if they're including everyone who signs up for a Gmail account. (That's a valid complaint, but it's between Google and their shareholders, since the rest of us don't need to care how many users Google+ actually has.) More importantly, it means that all of those users become part of a public database that is searchable by name.

As a test, I went to Gmail.com and created a new user account, entering the first and last name "Zanzibar Higglesbrain" which I figured was probably unique. (Fan fiction authors: knock yourselves out.) Then I logged back in under my own Google+ account, went to the people search page, searched for "Zanzibar Higglesbrain", and found 1 match. (I didn't even need the exact name -- entering "Zanzibar Hi" into the people search box, listed Mr. Higglesbrain among the results.)

Now, when I created the Higglesbrain account, how much up-front notice was I given that I would be adding myself to a public database? I went through the normal signup process, viewed through the eyes of a novice -- after typing in Gmail.com, I was redirected to a page on accounts.google.com with the innocuous title "Create your Google Account", and entered my personal information. On the next page is the somewhat confusingly worded message (I've also posted a screen shot here):

How you'll appear

Choose how you appear across Google by creating a public Google+ profile.
Include a photo - you can update it at any time.
[Link:] Add a photo
[Button:] Next step

This message is misleadingly worded because the phrase "by creating a public Google+ profile" implies that's something you can do, optionally, if you want to. It doesn't really disclose the fact that the profile is being created for you as a side effect of signing up for Gmail. The wording might be interpreted, rather, to mean that your profile will only be created if you upload a photo (which is not the case; your profile gets created regardless). And besides -- what if the user is a novice who went to Gmail.com because they saw all their friends using Gmail.com addresses, and have never even heard of "Google+"? If they haven't consented to their name being added to a publicly searchable database, it shouldn't be their responsibility to know what "Google+" is, so that they can object to their name being listed there.

After you click the "Next step" button, the final page in the account creation process says:

Welcome, [firstname]

Your new email address is [address]

Thanks for creating a Google Account. Use it to subscribe to channels on YouTube, video chat for free, save favorite places on Maps, and lots more.

Note what's conspicuously missing from this message: It doesn't mention Google+ at all, much less the fact that you have unwittingly "joined" it, where other users can find you.

I can think of a couple of scenarios where a user might object to their name being listed in a searchable user database, apart from just "on general principles". If you have a stalker in your past, and they find your name on Google+, it confirms for them that you're probably still alive, that you're probably active on the Internet, and that you're still going by the name that they knew you under. Or, if you have a very unique first name, anyone who knows it could search on Google+ to find your last name, even if you didn't want them to. Similarly, if you have a very unique last name, someone could use the search feature to find the names of your children and other relatives with the same last name, at least those of them that are using Gmail.

And this lack of user consent is a more serious problem on Gmail/Google+ than on Facebook, because most Facebook users create a profile with the general expectation that other Facebook users can find them. Some Facebook users had chosen not to make their accounts searchable -- and Facebook justifiably received a firestorm of criticism for removing that feature and forcing those users' profiles to become publicly searchable after all -- but the overwhelming majority of Facebook users had joined with the understanding that their profiles could be found by others. That's not a valid assumption about Gmail users -- if someone creates a Gmail.com email address, there's no reason to think that they believed they were joining a publicly searchable name database.

Google has tried to mollify people's concerns about emails from strangers on Google+, by specifying that anyone not already in your Google+ circles will only be able to send one message to your Gmail inbox, and will not be able to send more messages until you reply. But this misunderstands the privacy implications in, for example, the stalker scenario. If a stalker ex "Bob" really did find your name on Google+, they might try to tease out a reply by creating a Google+ account under the name of a friend "Alice" you and your ex had in common, and sending you a generic "How have you been doing lately?" message. Since that message probably won't raise any alarm bells (the message isn't asking for anything like a current address or phone number), you might not realize that just by replying, you've already done the damage (the stalker now knows your email address, plus the fact that it's still an actively used account).

Similarly, although you can modify your Gmail settings to prevent strangers on Google+ from messaging you, the ability to change a setting to fix a problem only helps a user if the user realizes when the problem is happening. For example, if the problem resulting from this new feature switch were a deluge of spam from strangers on Google+, then more and more users would get frustrated and look for information about how to stop the flood of spam, and most of them would find out about this setting and switch it off. But for combatting the stalker problem, this setting is useless, because by definition if a stalker finds you on Google+ (and tricks you into replying to a message and revealing your email address), you wouldn't know about that problem until the damage has already been done, at which point it's too late to solve it by changing a setting.

The only way to avoid this risk to people's privacy, would be for Google to ask Gmail users at the time they create a Gmail account: "Do you also want to create a Google+ account, yes or no? This means you will have a publicly searchable profile, and people who know your name will be able to find you." Some people would like to be found, some people would rather not be, and this would allow them to sort themselves properly.

But instead, we have an untold number of zombie Google+ accounts created whenever someone signs up for Gmail, which serve no purpose except to make it possible to find people who never confirmed that they wanted to be found -- all most likely for the reason given by Chris Taylor at Mashable, so that "Larry Page gets to claim increased Google+ user numbers on the next quarterly earnings call."

45 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Bennett Haselton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who is Bennett Haselton, and why do we care what he says?

    1. Re:Bennett Haselton? by tomhath · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you want to know who he is, just look him up on Google+

    2. Re:Bennett Haselton? by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look at his past submissions if you want to know.

      Myself, Im partial to the one where he asked whether we REALLY need the 4th and 5th amendments.

    3. Re:Bennett Haselton? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want to know who he is, just look him up on Google+

      Better yet, look him up on Google+ and send him an email. After all, he states that this linking of Google+ and Gmail won't cause an increase of unsolicited email.

    4. Re:Bennett Haselton? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      I don't know, but this Zanzibar Higglesbrain sounds like a guy whose G+ feed I would like to follow!

      Good idea! I also went ahead and uploaded my picture of Zanzibar, and tagged him!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    5. Re:Bennett Haselton? by bennetthaselton · · Score: 2

      I never wrote anything questioning the Fourth Amendment.

      Actually, if you read the original article:
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/07/1439220/seeking-fifth-amendment-defenders
      and scroll down to the paragraph beginning, "Compare that to the collateral damage caused by, for example, a search warrant," it should be clear that I think the potential harm to innocents caused by a search of one's property, is greater than the potential for harm in asking, "Did you do it?", and that if anything we need stronger protection against searches.

    6. Re:Bennett Haselton? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's quality, not quantity.

      The polar opposite of your stories then, you rambling windbag.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Bennett Haselton? by bennetthaselton · · Score: 2

      This is incorrect. The right against physical coercion is separate from the right to refuse to answer questions.

      As I said in the original article, the proof of this is that if you are a third-party witness, you cannot refuse to answer questions about a crime about which you may have been a witness (but are not a suspect). The Fifth Amendment does not apply. But, obviously, you still can't be beaten up by the police. Because that right is separate from the Fifth Amendment.

      I explained this in the original article. Judging from the comments, many people just scrolled to the bottom and started typing without reading it.

    8. Re:Bennett Haselton? by alva_edison · · Score: 2

      This is incorrect. The right against physical coercion is separate from the right to refuse to answer questions.

      The right to refuse to answer questions also includes a right not to be physically coerced.

      As I said in the original article, the proof of this is that if you are a third-party witness, you cannot refuse to answer questions about a crime about which you may have been a witness (but are not a suspect).

      Unless you would incriminate yourself (key word) by answering. It doesn't even have to be for the same crime, you can refuse to answer any question as long as it would incriminate you.

      But, obviously, you still can't be beaten up by the police. Because that right is separate from the Fifth Amendment.

      You are assuming mutual exclusivity when there is none. Laws overlap. There are laws which prevent police from beating people, which apply to everyone; but, the Fifth Amendment also prevents physical coercion, which isn't necessarily redundant.

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
  2. Google plus by sTERNKERN · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just make it stop. I go to G-Mail to send mails, I go to Youtube to watch videos. If I wanted to socialize, I would have gone to Twitter/SnapChat/Facebook/MySpace (is there still such a thing?)/SecondLife... Google was famous for it's tools being simple, powerful and not forcing anything on the user. Good old days, eh?

    1. Re:Google plus by TrentTheThief · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with your views. Google has jumped the damned shark.

    2. Re:Google plus by Arker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Not only is G+ not forced upon you, at all, but it's one of the easiest social services to delete your account from, removing ALL your history (every post, every reply, every picture, every single trace of your existence). And to top it off, it allows you, before you delete your account, to download a .zip file of all your posts, if you want."

      Says the AC with no link.

      IT certainly has been forced on me and if there is an option to delete it short of deleting my accounts on gmail and youtube (which seem to have been merged without my consent) in the process it's far from obvious.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    3. Re:Google plus by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      haha that's like saying that you're not forced to give the government your photo.

      sure you're not. unless you want to drive.

      anyways, all this shit is pretty much because nobody wanted to use google+ - but some jackasses had their bonuses tied to the user numbers, so those jackasses then made it so that if you want to use youtube, you'll be a google+ user - and now every new gmail user is a google+ user.

      they're just playing a stupid numbers game. this wouldn't even be a problem if they had not along the way fucked up youtube comments(and moderation of them) etc while doing it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Google plus by Andrewkov · · Score: 2

      If I wanted to socialize, I would have gone to Twitter/SnapChat/Facebook/MySpace

      There's the rub (from google's perspective)

    5. Re:Google plus by atriusofbricia · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Not only is G+ not forced upon you, at all, but it's one of the easiest social services to delete your account from, removing ALL your history (every post, every reply, every picture, every single trace of your existence). And to top it off, it allows you, before you delete your account, to download a .zip file of all your posts, if you want."

      Says the AC with no link.

      IT certainly has been forced on me and if there is an option to delete it short of deleting my accounts on gmail and youtube (which seem to have been merged without my consent) in the process it's far from obvious.

      Odd, I was able to search and find a delete your google plus link easily. I do agree that it is slightly annoying they don't have a check box to not create the G+ profile but it isn't like they automatically fill it out and push everything into it. You have to manually go to G+ and finish the process if you want it, delete it if you don't.

      The poster's stalker premise is also pretty silly. If I'm being stalked am I really going to be dumb enough to create accounts with my actual name on them? The whole thing still strikes me as a tempest in a teapot.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    6. Re:Google plus by Arker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I do agree that it is slightly annoying they don't have a check box to not create the G+ profile but it isn't like they automatically fill it out and push everything into it. "

      That does not appear to be correct. Since google+ came out a pic that I used for a brief time on google talk (and I made sure it was set to only ever display to people on my chat list) is now showing up on youtube.

      "You have to manually go to G+ and finish the process if you want it, delete it if you don't."

      And to do that you have to retroactively agree to what they did. Not reasonable, not acceptable.

      I have a better idea. Google should go back and delete all the accounts that have not consented, which they should never have created in the first place, and issue a public apology.

      "The poster's stalker premise is also pretty silly. If I'm being stalked am I really going to be dumb enough to create accounts with my actual name on them?"

      The TOS demands your real name, which would be reasonable if they were not misusing it. Besides which, what usually happens is the stalker comes first, and only afterwards do people learn to be more careful what information they let out.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    7. Re:Google plus by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      With volume, you clod. Did you sleep through the late 1990s?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Why Google is a bad company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the reasons i hate Google, along with Facebook and MS and Apple and many other software developers is the forced changes. If this is so good, why not explain your reasoning and allow for an opt-in? Why must we be forced into some sort of change that we don't want or didn't ask for? It's funny because there are so many Google fans and Apple fans and what have you, but these big monolithic software developers don't care who you are or what you want; they'll force changes on you to their own benefit and F you if you don't want it. /sigh. At least hosting a domain isn't all that hard; time to use my own email.

  4. disallow searching in profile by fast+turtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's the easiest solution and works across all of Google if you simply check the god damn box on the profile page to disable listing/indexing your gmail addy by Google and if you didn't do it during the initial setup or soon after Google gave us the dashboard, you deserve what you get

    God damn posting filter - saying I'd posted 47 minutes ago when trying for AC - /. is going to the nuking cockroaches

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    1. Re:disallow searching in profile by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      Isn't it easier to just ignore a mail you might get this way, since it's unlikely to end up in a priority inbox unless you've got a relationship with that person on G+ anyway?

    2. Re:disallow searching in profile by misterooga · · Score: 3, Informative

      Took me a while to get there.

      1.Click on your icon (top right on my browser) to go to Account settings.
      2. Click on Google + Settings
      3. Under Profile (more than half way down), uncheck "Help others discover my profile in search results."
      4. Cross-fingers, because who knows what other options will be added

    3. Re:disallow searching in profile by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Took me a while to get there. 1.Click on your icon (top right on my browser) to go to Account settings. 2. Click on Google + Settings

      Wait a minute. You have to use Google+ to set a Gmail account setting? I would never find that link because I deliberately do not use Google+. Yes, this is very easy to opt out of, sure.

    4. Re:disallow searching in profile by Arker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Wait a minute. You have to use Google+ to set a Gmail account setting? I would never find that link because I deliberately do not use Google+. Yes, this is very easy to opt out of, sure."

      Ding ding ding. This is how screwed up google has gotten. They sign us up for a new service without our consent, then demand we log into it to opt out of stuff we never opted into. And to do that... you have to consent to the TOS.

      It's a neat little trap they have constructed. Do no evil? Hah.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  5. Really missed the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems that Mr. Bennett has truly missed the point. The point is that Google no longer intends to offer anybody a new "Gmail account". Henceforth they only offer a "Google+ account with email features."

    In 2014 you should expect that Google will roll this change to their Google Voice product. They will stop offering a new "Google Voice account" and will only offer new "Google+ account with Hangout voice features". After that they will eventually stop offering new accounts for their other products and only offer "Google+ account with feature".

    Look I don't like the change, but Apple no longer let's you create an Apple email account that isn't also an iTunes account and they have never let you create a FaceTime account that wasn't also an iTunes account.

    In fact a common complaint on Apple forums for years has come from people who originally created separate Apple email and iTunes accounts and desperately want to merge them.

    1. Re:Really missed the point by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems to me they're trying to move away from having gMail as the central account to Google+ being the central account. The problem is that people don't want that because Google+ is another social service (that you don't need to use, but that's what it is.) What they probably should have done is to have a simple Googler Account service that does nothing but contain your basic information and some gommon settings. Gmail, Google+, YouTube, etc are all just service that are associated with a specific Google Account. Peopl feel like they're forced to use Google+ because it's being used as the central coontact point and some want to have nothing to do with it. If you can be emailed via it, I can understand it, especially if this new capability is opt-out, which I think it is.

  6. Re: All missing the point by Dupple · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's very naive. What it means is that Google collects more private data, meta data they can cross reference to target ads and still hand it over to the NSA upon request.

    --
    Watch those corners
  7. Re:tl;dr Phonebook? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe it's because things were changed after they signed up for an account? Without their permission? In order to cross promote a product no one wants?

  8. Re:tl;dr Phonebook? by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Demand your money back.

  9. Google is playing a game of patience. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Google has a better revenue model than facebook. It is using that cash flow to out live competition like facebook. Facebook, despite is billion user base, is not creating any steady revenue. Google expects facebook to eventually fold and google+ will step in to fill the void because it would be the only thing with enough resources to fill the gap. It is not unlike Microsoft using its Office/Windows cash cow to outlive its competition. But unlike Microsoft, the switching costs are not very high for gmail users.

    All those slashdotter bemoaning google becoming evil or waxing eloquent about privacy issues or concerned about the victims of stalkers do not form a significant enough chunk of the population to matter. If they were year 2000 would have been the year of Desktop Linux.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  10. Re:tl;dr Phonebook? by GIL_Dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Spammers didn't typically scan the phone book and use automated bots to email all the people in it. So although phone books were "databases" they weren't easily accessible with some scripting.

    The OP may believe that the Google+ "SPAMagedon" isn't coming - however - I have noticed that, over the last week, I have been added to the "circles" of well over one hundred "accounts". When I click on these, most of them are marketing accounts or sock puppets. Some of the names are clearly marketing: "Angry Birds Lösung 3 Stars Games.J500", "Anime TV and Title Loans Chicago", "Fred's Best Title Loans", etc. Others, when you go look at them, are pretty clearly similar. 10 people have them in circles but they have 5,000+ circled. The posts (if there are any) are just advertisements. Does anybody really think that this was random? I am pretty sure these folks are getting ready to spam using G+. Sure, they will eventually get shut down. But I'd advise people to go change the setting in GMail that allows these folks to send you mail without knowing your gmail account.

  11. The Horror! by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My God! It's almost as if they had taken the names, phone numbers and addresses of millions of people and bound them into some sort of large book before distributing said book to everyone's home free of charge! Can you imagine the chaos such a thing might cause???

    1. Re:The Horror! by tgd · · Score: 2

      My God! It's almost as if they had taken the names, phone numbers and addresses of millions of people and bound them into some sort of large book before distributing said book to everyone's home free of charge! Can you imagine the chaos such a thing might cause???

      White pages tended to be limited to your town, or a small part of your town. Not, you know, 500 million people.

    2. Re:The Horror! by mjr167 · · Score: 2

      Cause they totally didn't go and post them on the internet

  12. Re:tl;dr Phonebook? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

    Yep, but them adding people to their circles does nothing for them. Circle membership is one-way: if I put you in one of my circles it gives you access to me as a member of that circle but gives me no access to you. To be useful for spamming those profiles would have to get you to add them to your circles. As for changing mail settings, I'm not sure I'd need to do it. GMail already filters spam, and this would just be a bit more spam on top of what I already get.

  13. Re:tl;dr Phonebook? by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not *your* information, it's information *about you.* See the difference?

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  14. Not the first time they've done it by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the Gmail account I use on Slashdot, I had my nickname, which should be the only publicly visible name, set to "GameboyRMH." I couldn't leave the First Name and Last Name fields blank (they were separate back then) so I set them to "GameboyRMH" and "The Cool Guy."

    Then one day last year my sister's giggling that I changed my username to "GameboyRMH The Cool Guy." WTF!? Turns out Google decided to expose what was in my real name fields to the public without my consent. At least my caution paid off.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. Re:tl;dr Phonebook? by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You've got hundreds of posts here bitching about Google. I'm going to guess you knew their privacy policies sometime before they started putting messages from people on G+ in your (low priority) inbox.

    How can a guy that links his website every time he posts, and has contact button on that website, complain that he might get an unsolicited email? What sort of lunacy is that?

  16. Re:tl;dr Phonebook? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That sure is the justification I'd use if I were terrible, and actively trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of spying on people.

  17. alternatives? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

    For me, Google blew it when they forcefully merged my gmail and youtube accounts. I've cut back on gmail as much as I can conveniently. But I still use it.

    It's hard to leave when you don't have a place to go. I used to have a nice tree of email addresses, and used them to keep email sorted between business and personal, and such like. Then most of the free email providers ended their services, and now I'm down to gmail. yahoo, and hotmail. Oh, and bigfoot still sort of works. If you call frequent delays of more than 8 hours working. (Made it difficult to reset a password on a site that sent out password reset tokens that expired in 6 hours.) Anyway, bigfoot isn't a full blown email service, it's only a redirector.

    I could run my own private little email server, but have been reluctant to do so. Apart from the sysadmin work, I'd have to deal with spam somehow. And as I'm using a free Dyndns name, there's no assurance my email address would be stable. (Paying doesn't do much more to assure permanence. Dyndns could always go out of business, or be bought and merged.) I used to have a "homeip.net" name, until Dyndns changed policies and killed half their free names. Now it's "dyndns.info". Guess I can live with that. Just don't force me into godaddy.

    At least there is now duckduckgo for search engines. I don't use Google's search much anymore. But what alternatives are there for email these days? Apart from yahoo and hotmail, that is?

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:alternatives? by Tx · · Score: 2

      Don't be a cheapskate, pay for FastMail or other decent pay-for email provider. Sign up for a personal domain, most services throw in email accounts for free with a domain, or forward to your FastMail account. Then you are completely independent of the vagaries of the free providers, and you can keep your email addresses regardless of whatever provider or ISP you use, and it will cost very little (~$30/year depending on your choice of domain).

      If you insist on free, well, you get what you pay for.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
  18. Abolish privacy? by h00manist · · Score: 2

    Sure, abolish privacy for everyone who holds a government position. They are working for the public anyway - aren't they.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  19. Re:tl;dr Phonebook? by mythosaz · · Score: 2

    I've got a roughly a thousand people in circles, and I'm in a about a other people's circles -- mostly as the result of playing a game in which having friends helped early on the G+ platform when they first rolled them out [Dragon Age - for whatever that's worth] -- and now from local Ingress circles.

    I've always had a smattering of obvious spam/marketing accounts add me, but I haven't seen much of a change at all, and I still haven't seen one email in my inbox from G+. Maybe it's coming, but I haven't seen it yet.

    ...for whatever that's worth.

  20. Welcome to SaaS by Junta · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is the nature of the software as a service beast.

    With traditional software (Windows OS is a good example), you have three choices, embrace the change, discontinue use of the product, or keep using old product and ignore change.

    The 'ignore change' evaporates in software as a service model.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  21. Re:tl;dr Phonebook? by mythosaz · · Score: 2

    You contract with Google doesn't force any action on your part. You're free to exit the contract at any time by not using their services.

    Every time they change their service, you get a new TOS, and you can agree to it or not use their service...

  22. Re:If you want quality, pay for it by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    I also pay a bit more than average to use a good ISP with solid technical specs, clueful people at the other end of the phone on the rare occasions anything does go wrong, things like a static IP address as standard, etc.

    Here in America, such a thing is not available at any price. Unless you're willing to settle for dog-slow DSL speeds (forget about any kind of streaming video), you have either 1 or 2 choices for ISPs: your local cable company (like ComCast), or your local telecom company (like Verizon). In many places, there's only 1 choice.

    I guess if you don't mind spending an extra $100/month on top of what you're paying for your mass-market ISP, you can opt for one of the DSL ISPs as they do seem to tout reliability as their selling point, and use that for email and other such stuff while using the mass-market ISP for Netflix and Youtube, but that's not a cheap prospect at all (probably between $150-200/month total).