35 ms·

I'll bet they still require you to register with your "real" name, but then they'll graciously allow you to have a linked nickname or two, I agree, and I think

I'll bet they still require you to register with your "real" name, but then they'll graciously allow you to have a linked nickname or two, I agree, and I think this is probably the right thing for them to do. (Well, probably stop kicking people off, too.) And I think they're probably doing this in an attempt to allow people to better represent themselves in the ways that they choose, and more in line with how they can offline. I just wrote this today: http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/11670022371/intimacy-is-performance http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/11670022371/intimacy-is-perfo... meaning they're still fully prepared to roll over on you to authoritarian governments or advertisers at the drop of a hat. I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. They should be prepared to flout the law? Or just not gather any of the information in the first place? What purpose would this have for them, in that case? Seems fairly obvious that anyone who's really worried about authoritarian governments or advertisers shouldn't be using google products.

blahedo 15y ago
> > meaning they're still fully prepared to roll over on you > I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. They should be prepared to flout the law? Why would you draw that inference? JWZ seems to be presuming the opposite, i.e. that Google plans to comply with the law---and since they will have carefully collected legal names to go with every account, they can be maximally helpful to the authoritarian governments who want to track users down. > Or just not gather any of the information in the first place? This one. Or at least, if not "any of the information", maybe not gather all of the information. Permit users to associate their account with their established pseudonym and provide exactly as many RL details as they feel comfortable providing.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  I meant what was his suggestion to correct this. That they should flout the law? This one. Or at least, if not "any of the information", maybe not gather all of the information. Permit users to associate their account with their established pseudonym and provide exactly as many RL details as they feel comfortable providing. Use a fake but real sounding name. Then use a pseudonym attached to it. Then provide exactly as many RL details as you feel comfortable. Why does it matter that the pseudonym is somehow canonical?
- fpgeek 15y ago
  The idea that Google having your Real Name via Google+ helps them be helpful to governments (authoritarian or otherwise) is... odd. If a government wants to tie a Google account to a Real Name, they have plenty of options: - get a history of IP addresses that accessed the account and contact the relevant ISPs - track other Google accounts logged into from a similar pattern of IP addresses and see if there's a Real Name for any of them - look at the content associated with the account (e.g. email), which may reveal the Real Name and/or give pointers to other services (e.g. Paypal) that might well have it - if you use an Android phone with the Google account in question, Google can tie the account to a SIM and an IMEI. If the SIM is postpaid (or even prepaid in many countries), that will directly lead to a Real Name (note: authoritarian governments are very likely to require all SIMs be associated with a Real Name). Even if a prepaid SIM isn't directly associated with a Real Name, there still could be a payment trail for the SIM and/or top-ups ... - probably other angles I haven't thought of yet These are additional steps, but many of them are easy because they involve actors (e.g. ISPs, carriers, credit card processors) that are known for cooperating with governments (and sometimes even private actors like the MPAA & RIAA). Beyond that, anyone trying to tie a Google account to a Real Name is likely to do some or all of these things anyway to check whether or not you lied to Google. Giving Google your Real Name for Google+ affects whether or not they can use it. If you're not happy with how Google is going to use your Real Name, Google+ isn't for you (and probably wasn't even without the pseudonym issue, since you have concerns about Google's business practices). Giving your Real Name to Google for Google+ doesn't meaningfully change whether or not a government (or other entity in a position to legally compel Google) can tie your Google account to a Real Name.
  - epistasis 15y ago
    All of those methods are very easily avoidable by somebody who wants to remain anonymous. And Google complying with a subpeona or National Security Letter is certainly not odd, and should be expected since Google is law-abiding. If you have not heard of National Security Letters, >between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03...
yesimahuman 15y ago
I just don't get what the big deal is. Here we've got a platform that would be so much better with a more diverse user base, and Google is wasting time on petty stuff like what name you use. In my opinion, as long as you are producing content your circles enjoy, who cares what name you go by? I understand they have identity plans. But as a user, I want the service to become more interesting, and I don't think they are doing us any favors.

blahedo 15y ago

> > meaning they're still fully prepared to roll over on you > I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. They should be prepared to flout the law? Why would you draw that inference? JWZ seems to be presuming the opposite, i.e. that Google plans to comply with the law---and since they will have carefully collected legal names to go with every account, they can be maximally helpful to the authoritarian governments who want to track users down. > Or just not gather any of the information in the first place? This one. Or at least, if not "any of the information", maybe not gather all of the information. Permit users to associate their account with their established pseudonym and provide exactly as many RL details as they feel comfortable providing.

joebadmo 15y ago
I meant what was his suggestion to correct this. That they should flout the law? This one. Or at least, if not "any of the information", maybe not gather all of the information. Permit users to associate their account with their established pseudonym and provide exactly as many RL details as they feel comfortable providing. Use a fake but real sounding name. Then use a pseudonym attached to it. Then provide exactly as many RL details as you feel comfortable. Why does it matter that the pseudonym is somehow canonical?
fpgeek 15y ago
The idea that Google having your Real Name via Google+ helps them be helpful to governments (authoritarian or otherwise) is... odd. If a government wants to tie a Google account to a Real Name, they have plenty of options: - get a history of IP addresses that accessed the account and contact the relevant ISPs - track other Google accounts logged into from a similar pattern of IP addresses and see if there's a Real Name for any of them - look at the content associated with the account (e.g. email), which may reveal the Real Name and/or give pointers to other services (e.g. Paypal) that might well have it - if you use an Android phone with the Google account in question, Google can tie the account to a SIM and an IMEI. If the SIM is postpaid (or even prepaid in many countries), that will directly lead to a Real Name (note: authoritarian governments are very likely to require all SIMs be associated with a Real Name). Even if a prepaid SIM isn't directly associated with a Real Name, there still could be a payment trail for the SIM and/or top-ups ... - probably other angles I haven't thought of yet These are additional steps, but many of them are easy because they involve actors (e.g. ISPs, carriers, credit card processors) that are known for cooperating with governments (and sometimes even private actors like the MPAA & RIAA). Beyond that, anyone trying to tie a Google account to a Real Name is likely to do some or all of these things anyway to check whether or not you lied to Google. Giving Google your Real Name for Google+ affects whether or not they can use it. If you're not happy with how Google is going to use your Real Name, Google+ isn't for you (and probably wasn't even without the pseudonym issue, since you have concerns about Google's business practices). Giving your Real Name to Google for Google+ doesn't meaningfully change whether or not a government (or other entity in a position to legally compel Google) can tie your Google account to a Real Name.
- epistasis 15y ago
  All of those methods are very easily avoidable by somebody who wants to remain anonymous. And Google complying with a subpeona or National Security Letter is certainly not odd, and should be expected since Google is law-abiding. If you have not heard of National Security Letters, >between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03...

yesimahuman 15y ago

I just don't get what the big deal is. Here we've got a platform that would be so much better with a more diverse user base, and Google is wasting time on petty stuff like what name you use. In my opinion, as long as you are producing content your circles enjoy, who cares what name you go by? I understand they have identity plans. But as a user, I want the service to become more interesting, and I don't think they are doing us any favors.