7 ms·

Google Bans Online Anonymity While Patenting It

54 points by neya 14y ago

Tipzntrix 14y ago
Don't be evil, Google!
- ktsmith 14y ago
  There doesn't appear to be anything evil going on here. Google patented a method for having a primary persona in a social network, a number of other personas within the network held by the original persona, and being able to link the secondary personas back to the first for the purpose of mapping relationships, communications, etc. Seems fairly straightforward and I don't know of anything like that being in use with any social network though I could be wrong. The slashdot posting seems to be little more than flamebait. Google+ is a privately held social network and Google can choose to require real names on it if they so wish. The patent deals with persona mappings on a social network and does not prevent other companies from implementing anonymous communications on their own social networks. It could prevent mapping that information in the method described by the patent but that's it. I really have no idea why this is on HN unless it's posted as an example of what's wrong with /.
  - Tipzntrix 14y ago
    You should check out Yahoo.
    - ktsmith 14y ago
      What about yahoo? Does Yahoo! have a social network? The patent specifically speaks to doing this mapping/routing in the context of a social network.
      - Zash 14y ago
        Yahoo! Mail. Email is a social network.
        ktsmith 14y ago
        I would certainly hope that any IP attorney litigating these patents would be able to argue that email is most definitely not a social network as used in the context of the patent.
        molmalo 14y ago
        Email can't be defined as a Social Network in the context of this patent, because they had to define what it constitutes a Social Network to be able to use the term in their text. But Windows Live Messenger can be defined as a SN, with that definition. I don't know if Yahoo! Messenger could also be included, because I don't use it and I'm not very familiar with it. Read my response above. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541041 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541041
      - Tipzntrix 14y ago
        Yahoo does have a social network. Messenger, gaming, profiles, friends (contacts), and just about everything that FB has. it's just uglier and lacks the simplistic search bar at the top that makes things so much easier.
  - molmalo 14y ago
    MS is doing the same, by allowing the use of different account names, linked to the same user. So you can have a username from outlook.com, a username from hotmail.com, a user from msn.com, all linked to your 'main account' (whatever it is) and use them as one. Having pseudonyms is not new. It's basically the same as having aliases for email accounts. This renders the "invention", something obvious with previous art. I can't see how this patent application can prevail.
    - ktsmith 14y ago
      Outlook.com, hotmail.com and msn.com are not part of a social network which is a requirement of the patent.
      - molmalo 14y ago
        That would require to define Social Network in a way that Microsoft can't say otherwise, because Microsoft has referred to them as social networks several times. And of course, they had Windows Live Spaces within their Services, which was defined as a "blogging and social networking platform".[1] So, the fact that it wasn't successful doesn't mean that it didn't existed at all. And they define Social Network as: "A social network is any type of social structure where the users are connected by a common feature, for example, Google Plus. The common feature includes friendship, family, work, an interest, etc. The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems, such as those included in the system 100, including explicitly-defined relationships and relationships implied by social connections with other users, where the relationships are defined in a social graph 179. The social graph 179 is a mapping of all users in a social network and how they are related to each other. The social graph 179 is included in the memory 237 that is described below in detail. " That could describe Windows Live Messenger also: - It is a social structure, - Where users are connected by a common feature (contact, work, family, etc). - It has explicitly-defined relationship between contacts. - The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems (it allows to connect to facebook, and other services, and link contacts from there). - It has a social graph of all users in the network (unlike mail, as somebody else suggested, but Windows Live Messenger does have this graph). - This graph is a mapping of all users in the network and how they are related. - (Read the definitions of memory: basically, memory of an electronic device, permanent or removable, volatile or static, etc) The graph it's stored in some kind of computer memory (As they include pretty much everything, including floppy disks!!!!!!). -- The fact that the USPTO granted them the patent, doesn't mean that it can't be invalidated. And if Google tries to enforce this patent, it most surely will be invalidated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Spaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Spaces
  - blerrrgh 14y ago
    I disagree. There does seem to be something evil going on here, and it's the implicit hypocrisy of do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do. Inject any amount of imperative conditions and circumstances, you like. You're only emphasizing the double standards Google would like to impose. Sometimes be evil, othertimes don't. The fact is that product managers at Google+ want cash cow personalities like Ashton Kutcher tweeting their tweets at Larry King from Google+ instead of Twitter, and these VIPs are the bait for the rest of the faceless rabble who serve merely as an online entourage, and a justification for ad prices. Google+ is a business based on personalities. They don't come right out and tell you this, but it doesn't mean it isn't true. Popularity and rejection cut to the heart of an individual's emotions when participating online, especially when playing for keeps with their actual identity. Google+ is forcing you to play for keeps, but what about the dangers? They want the money that comes with veracity, but they offer little in return (just like facebook). Who picks up the pieces after someone gets smeared, or execises porr judgement. There's no padding. No undo file. Just you. Left out in the cold. Google+ is courting special people, but not everybody is special. Exclusive treatment for some, unprotected, unmitigated public exposure for others. Pay to play, but the VIP handlers probably won't pay attention to you, unless you have special representation. Need I harp on the cognitive dissonance this has with a "democratic internet"?
    - ktsmith 14y ago
      No one is forced to use Google+ or Facebook or any other platform that requires a real identity. Would I prefer it if you could use pseudonyms on these sites? Sure. That doesn't mean that any of these companies have to cater to my wants. I don't really get what the rest of your rant has to do with my original comment.
      - blerrrgh 14y ago
        > No one is forced to use Google+ True, but the tons and TONS of people are harangued into using Google+ by irritating tool tips and notification messages when using other Google products (like mail, chat, docs/drive and even Chrome, which in and of itself has it's own browser campaign whenever you visit the search product with a non-Chrome browser). If not provoked into Google+ by pushy interface cues (and don't play naive, you KNOW they've got top UX and marketing people trying to find that sweet spot of deniable annoyance, when crafting those notifications), then people are click-sniped into Google+, by stumbling into it, when they click on whatever caught their attention, simply out of curiosity and yes-ing to death EULA notices, not realizing that their publishing information publicly in the product and outward to the service, visible to other users (potentially in search results no less). This is what happened to me, when I carefully clicked on things when it first came out, and relized I'd have to go back, delete things out and void my account and activity in Plus where I didn't want it. Add to this the recent privacy policy changes. But sure, gloss over these details. Google learned their lessons from the Buzz debacle, and its accompanying lawsuits, so they aren't railroading people into inadvertent public disclosures anymore (like who they've been e-mailing, and their auto-contact list), but they ARE cattle prodding people into it.
capo 14y ago
Pseudonymity != anonymity And I don't think they've 'banned it online', case in point: this community.
- spindritf 14y ago
  Exactly, I completely don't understand those complaints. > 'There are lots of places where you can be anonymous online,' Betanews' Joe Wilcox notes. 'Google+ isn't one of them.' Got it. But if online anonymity is so evil, then what's the deal with Google's newly-awarded patent for Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions? Because they didn't say it's "so" evil, they didn't even say it's just evil, nor did they ban it, they just want you to use your real name on G+. You're still free to post on 4chan from behind two proxies, to write on reddit and traverse irc under your pseudonym, even get a random gmail address, or send encrypted posts to alt.anonymous.messages. Does every community online have to be the same?
kenster07 14y ago
Does anyone fail to see why this would qualify for a patent?
webwanderings 14y ago
Walking on the Internet with your true identity is somewhat similar to wearing your religion on the sleeves and walking outside of your house. I could never understand why people do that .... However, just as we don't and shouldn't live in glass house in the offline world, we shouldn't really be totally non-anonymous on the Internet. It is as simple as that but apparently there are way too many people out there on the Internet who do not understand.
- pnathan 14y ago
  I use my real name online as a means of maintaining a professional presence. Non-professional online existence almost invariably happens under a pseudonym.
  - rwolf 14y ago
    Citation needed.
- yuhong 14y ago
  I would not go that far. I do prefer people using their real name, and do want the problems to be fixed if possible, but know that it is often not that easy.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  FYI, the name of the above logical fallacy is argument from ignorance. "I don't know x, so y must be true".
  - webwanderings 14y ago
    You apparently didn't read my sentence correctly. I am against people living in glass houses on the Internet. If online life is slowly transcending the offline life, than it is reasonable to suggest that "facebook" aspect of the online life is unnatural. You shouldn't be forced or coerced - naturally or unnaturally - into wearing your identities unless you absolutely have to (for government or for security reasons).
- 14y ago
olalonde 14y ago
Honestly, it would be awesome if Google manages to patent anonymity. It would potentially raise widespread awareness on how absurd the current US patent system is.
- marcoamorales 14y ago
  Apple patented a rectangle, and I haven't seen much rise in awareness.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    I swear, every time I read nonsense like this, I want to slap the person who wrote it. Apple did not patent the rounded rectangle. Rather, the rounded rectangle was a small part of what's called their "trade dress", which they successfully demonstrated Samsung copied. This wouldn't be difficult to understand if you weren't so busy with trolling. edit: Yes, go ahead and downvote me for pointing out how stupid you are.
    - lotharbot 14y ago
      Just a heads up: it's encouraged to point out when people are wrong, but you've trounced all over the guidelines [0] to do it. Please reread and follow the guidelines in the future. Of particular note: - Be civil. - When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." - Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. [0] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - enraged_camel 14y ago
        It's funny you mention the guidelines, because they also list this one: Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
kmfrk 14y ago
One of the things that really irk me about Google's new name policy is how friggin' hard it is to delete my old comments.
- thenextcorner 14y ago
  Well, Eric Schmidt once said: "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place" or "Every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends’ social media sites.” Pretty scary if you think about it that the same guy completely banned a CNet reporter from all Google briefings just because he showed a case of all the information he could find through Google on Eric Schmidt...
droithomme 14y ago
By patenting it, they can prevent others from implementing it. Patents are often used to prevent activity.
- gn0s1s 14y ago
  too late. http://www.imagn.com/#!/info/about/features http://www.imagn.com/#!/info/about/features
udpheaders 14y ago
"A plurality of personas" The patent system has become a joke. Only because of how it is being used, and it's one industry that is driving things to the point of absurdity. There is no integrity to the system, no matter how well-designed it is in theory, when they keep accepting nonsense like this. If filing for these was affordable for anyone, accepting them would have to come to an end. It would not be worth anyone's time to review. "Social computing". In other words sending messages over a wire using a computer. No one was doing that in the late 60's, in the 70's or in the 80's or even the 90's. This is totally new. Totally fresh. Bleeding edge. Hot. And patentable!

54 points by neya 14y ago

Tipzntrix 14y ago

Don't be evil, Google!

ktsmith 14y ago
There doesn't appear to be anything evil going on here. Google patented a method for having a primary persona in a social network, a number of other personas within the network held by the original persona, and being able to link the secondary personas back to the first for the purpose of mapping relationships, communications, etc. Seems fairly straightforward and I don't know of anything like that being in use with any social network though I could be wrong. The slashdot posting seems to be little more than flamebait. Google+ is a privately held social network and Google can choose to require real names on it if they so wish. The patent deals with persona mappings on a social network and does not prevent other companies from implementing anonymous communications on their own social networks. It could prevent mapping that information in the method described by the patent but that's it. I really have no idea why this is on HN unless it's posted as an example of what's wrong with /.
- Tipzntrix 14y ago
  You should check out Yahoo.
  - ktsmith 14y ago
    What about yahoo? Does Yahoo! have a social network? The patent specifically speaks to doing this mapping/routing in the context of a social network.
    - Zash 14y ago
      Yahoo! Mail. Email is a social network.
      - ktsmith 14y ago
        I would certainly hope that any IP attorney litigating these patents would be able to argue that email is most definitely not a social network as used in the context of the patent.
      - molmalo 14y ago
        Email can't be defined as a Social Network in the context of this patent, because they had to define what it constitutes a Social Network to be able to use the term in their text. But Windows Live Messenger can be defined as a SN, with that definition. I don't know if Yahoo! Messenger could also be included, because I don't use it and I'm not very familiar with it. Read my response above. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541041 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541041
    - Tipzntrix 14y ago
      Yahoo does have a social network. Messenger, gaming, profiles, friends (contacts), and just about everything that FB has. it's just uglier and lacks the simplistic search bar at the top that makes things so much easier.
- molmalo 14y ago
  MS is doing the same, by allowing the use of different account names, linked to the same user. So you can have a username from outlook.com, a username from hotmail.com, a user from msn.com, all linked to your 'main account' (whatever it is) and use them as one. Having pseudonyms is not new. It's basically the same as having aliases for email accounts. This renders the "invention", something obvious with previous art. I can't see how this patent application can prevail.
  - ktsmith 14y ago
    Outlook.com, hotmail.com and msn.com are not part of a social network which is a requirement of the patent.
    - molmalo 14y ago
      That would require to define Social Network in a way that Microsoft can't say otherwise, because Microsoft has referred to them as social networks several times. And of course, they had Windows Live Spaces within their Services, which was defined as a "blogging and social networking platform".[1] So, the fact that it wasn't successful doesn't mean that it didn't existed at all. And they define Social Network as: "A social network is any type of social structure where the users are connected by a common feature, for example, Google Plus. The common feature includes friendship, family, work, an interest, etc. The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems, such as those included in the system 100, including explicitly-defined relationships and relationships implied by social connections with other users, where the relationships are defined in a social graph 179. The social graph 179 is a mapping of all users in a social network and how they are related to each other. The social graph 179 is included in the memory 237 that is described below in detail. " That could describe Windows Live Messenger also: - It is a social structure, - Where users are connected by a common feature (contact, work, family, etc). - It has explicitly-defined relationship between contacts. - The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems (it allows to connect to facebook, and other services, and link contacts from there). - It has a social graph of all users in the network (unlike mail, as somebody else suggested, but Windows Live Messenger does have this graph). - This graph is a mapping of all users in the network and how they are related. - (Read the definitions of memory: basically, memory of an electronic device, permanent or removable, volatile or static, etc) The graph it's stored in some kind of computer memory (As they include pretty much everything, including floppy disks!!!!!!). -- The fact that the USPTO granted them the patent, doesn't mean that it can't be invalidated. And if Google tries to enforce this patent, it most surely will be invalidated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Spaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Spaces
- blerrrgh 14y ago
  I disagree. There does seem to be something evil going on here, and it's the implicit hypocrisy of do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do. Inject any amount of imperative conditions and circumstances, you like. You're only emphasizing the double standards Google would like to impose. Sometimes be evil, othertimes don't. The fact is that product managers at Google+ want cash cow personalities like Ashton Kutcher tweeting their tweets at Larry King from Google+ instead of Twitter, and these VIPs are the bait for the rest of the faceless rabble who serve merely as an online entourage, and a justification for ad prices. Google+ is a business based on personalities. They don't come right out and tell you this, but it doesn't mean it isn't true. Popularity and rejection cut to the heart of an individual's emotions when participating online, especially when playing for keeps with their actual identity. Google+ is forcing you to play for keeps, but what about the dangers? They want the money that comes with veracity, but they offer little in return (just like facebook). Who picks up the pieces after someone gets smeared, or execises porr judgement. There's no padding. No undo file. Just you. Left out in the cold. Google+ is courting special people, but not everybody is special. Exclusive treatment for some, unprotected, unmitigated public exposure for others. Pay to play, but the VIP handlers probably won't pay attention to you, unless you have special representation. Need I harp on the cognitive dissonance this has with a "democratic internet"?
  - ktsmith 14y ago
    No one is forced to use Google+ or Facebook or any other platform that requires a real identity. Would I prefer it if you could use pseudonyms on these sites? Sure. That doesn't mean that any of these companies have to cater to my wants. I don't really get what the rest of your rant has to do with my original comment.
    - blerrrgh 14y ago
      > No one is forced to use Google+ True, but the tons and TONS of people are harangued into using Google+ by irritating tool tips and notification messages when using other Google products (like mail, chat, docs/drive and even Chrome, which in and of itself has it's own browser campaign whenever you visit the search product with a non-Chrome browser). If not provoked into Google+ by pushy interface cues (and don't play naive, you KNOW they've got top UX and marketing people trying to find that sweet spot of deniable annoyance, when crafting those notifications), then people are click-sniped into Google+, by stumbling into it, when they click on whatever caught their attention, simply out of curiosity and yes-ing to death EULA notices, not realizing that their publishing information publicly in the product and outward to the service, visible to other users (potentially in search results no less). This is what happened to me, when I carefully clicked on things when it first came out, and relized I'd have to go back, delete things out and void my account and activity in Plus where I didn't want it. Add to this the recent privacy policy changes. But sure, gloss over these details. Google learned their lessons from the Buzz debacle, and its accompanying lawsuits, so they aren't railroading people into inadvertent public disclosures anymore (like who they've been e-mailing, and their auto-contact list), but they ARE cattle prodding people into it.

capo 14y ago

Pseudonymity != anonymity And I don't think they've 'banned it online', case in point: this community.

spindritf 14y ago
Exactly, I completely don't understand those complaints. > 'There are lots of places where you can be anonymous online,' Betanews' Joe Wilcox notes. 'Google+ isn't one of them.' Got it. But if online anonymity is so evil, then what's the deal with Google's newly-awarded patent for Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions? Because they didn't say it's "so" evil, they didn't even say it's just evil, nor did they ban it, they just want you to use your real name on G+. You're still free to post on 4chan from behind two proxies, to write on reddit and traverse irc under your pseudonym, even get a random gmail address, or send encrypted posts to alt.anonymous.messages. Does every community online have to be the same?

kenster07 14y ago

Does anyone fail to see why this would qualify for a patent?

webwanderings 14y ago

Walking on the Internet with your true identity is somewhat similar to wearing your religion on the sleeves and walking outside of your house. I could never understand why people do that .... However, just as we don't and shouldn't live in glass house in the offline world, we shouldn't really be totally non-anonymous on the Internet. It is as simple as that but apparently there are way too many people out there on the Internet who do not understand.

pnathan 14y ago
I use my real name online as a means of maintaining a professional presence. Non-professional online existence almost invariably happens under a pseudonym.
- rwolf 14y ago
  Citation needed.
yuhong 14y ago
I would not go that far. I do prefer people using their real name, and do want the problems to be fixed if possible, but know that it is often not that easy.
vibrunazo 14y ago
FYI, the name of the above logical fallacy is argument from ignorance. "I don't know x, so y must be true".
- webwanderings 14y ago
  You apparently didn't read my sentence correctly. I am against people living in glass houses on the Internet. If online life is slowly transcending the offline life, than it is reasonable to suggest that "facebook" aspect of the online life is unnatural. You shouldn't be forced or coerced - naturally or unnaturally - into wearing your identities unless you absolutely have to (for government or for security reasons).
14y ago

olalonde 14y ago

Honestly, it would be awesome if Google manages to patent anonymity. It would potentially raise widespread awareness on how absurd the current US patent system is.

marcoamorales 14y ago
Apple patented a rectangle, and I haven't seen much rise in awareness.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  I swear, every time I read nonsense like this, I want to slap the person who wrote it. Apple did not patent the rounded rectangle. Rather, the rounded rectangle was a small part of what's called their "trade dress", which they successfully demonstrated Samsung copied. This wouldn't be difficult to understand if you weren't so busy with trolling. edit: Yes, go ahead and downvote me for pointing out how stupid you are.
  - lotharbot 14y ago
    Just a heads up: it's encouraged to point out when people are wrong, but you've trounced all over the guidelines [0] to do it. Please reread and follow the guidelines in the future. Of particular note: - Be civil. - When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." - Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. [0] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - enraged_camel 14y ago
      It's funny you mention the guidelines, because they also list this one: Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.

kmfrk 14y ago

One of the things that really irk me about Google's new name policy is how friggin' hard it is to delete my old comments.

thenextcorner 14y ago
Well, Eric Schmidt once said: "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place" or "Every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends’ social media sites.” Pretty scary if you think about it that the same guy completely banned a CNet reporter from all Google briefings just because he showed a case of all the information he could find through Google on Eric Schmidt...

droithomme 14y ago

By patenting it, they can prevent others from implementing it. Patents are often used to prevent activity.

gn0s1s 14y ago
too late. http://www.imagn.com/#!/info/about/features http://www.imagn.com/#!/info/about/features

udpheaders 14y ago

"A plurality of personas" The patent system has become a joke. Only because of how it is being used, and it's one industry that is driving things to the point of absurdity. There is no integrity to the system, no matter how well-designed it is in theory, when they keep accepting nonsense like this. If filing for these was affordable for anyone, accepting them would have to come to an end. It would not be worth anyone's time to review. "Social computing". In other words sending messages over a wire using a computer. No one was doing that in the late 60's, in the 70's or in the 80's or even the 90's. This is totally new. Totally fresh. Bleeding edge. Hot. And patentable!