16 ms·

Google outed me

246 points by Sanddancer 13y ago

linux_devil 13y ago
In contrast with tag line : "Don't be evil"
- troels 13y ago
  It doesn't seem like this was intentional in any way. I don't think that counts as being "evil".
  - gnaffle 13y ago
    It doesn't have to be intentional to be evil. But, 1) The decision to require a full name and gender was intentional 2) The decision to merge multiple accounts under the Google+ umbrella was intentional 3) The decision to automate this merging was also intentional. I've myself been caught off guard with Google storing my search history on one of my customers' Google account because I forgot to log out after managing their AdWords account. Stupid me, right? But just as with Facebook, they've lost my trust. I'm not alone, and I think it will come back to bite them in the end.
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    "Don't be careless?"
    - thrown7779 13y ago
      "Don't underestimate the ability of some segment of the population to be offended by something you do. Whatever you do, you'll offend someone." Being offended is an epidemic...
      - marquis 13y ago
        Being offended is a moral issue and I agree, as a business you can't fight that 100%. However, being forced to conform to a business's view of your identity is unethical, especially as Google changed the rules - if they had indicated this might happen then those affected could have chosen not to use Plus.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - xenophanes 13y ago
        They seriously hurt a lot of people in a very predictable and avoidable way, and are not interested in fixing the harm they've done. And you're whitewashing it without giving any substantive answer to the points in the linked article.
        thrown7779 13y ago
        If you don't want to be "outed" by google, why give google the information needed to do that? Is creating 2 separate google accounts impossible these days?
        blueskin_ 13y ago
        No, but google will do all it can to link them.
        Casseres 13y ago
        I thought I had two separate accounts for YouTube and Gmail. Not anymore. I used my Gmail address to register an account with YouTube. What prevents them in the future from buying some company, and link those accounts because I use the same credit card or some other supposedly unique identifier?
        gnaffle 13y ago
        AFAIK it's required by the new terms that you give your real name. And to do much of anything you need to verify your account with an SMS to a previously unused cell phone number.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        I had two separate accounts. Google merged them despite my telling them not to. Seems to me HN covered this: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/VZSLjkdqksG https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/VZSLjkdq... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6745525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6745525 http://i.imgur.com/YgEjUuI.jpg http://i.imgur.com/YgEjUuI.jpg Google's proven it cannot be trusted to respect user choice, nor to not arbitrarily change the rules at a later date.
      - blueskin_ 13y ago
        So's privacy intrusion.
      - JulianMorrison 13y ago
        It isn't "offended" to be outed amidst transphobic people, it's "endangered". I wish we lived in a society so safe it would only be "offended".
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    Google ditched that motto a long, long time ago. Now it's "Don't be evil to our profits".
  - 6d0debc071 13y ago
    It requires positing an extraordinary degree of ignorance on the part of Google to support the contrary view. After all, people have always had the option to use their real names, they've simply chosen not to - presumably before making the change you'd make some attempt to look into why people would choose that way.
  - JulianMorrison 13y ago
    "Negligent with other people's lives due to unexamined privilege" is a subset of evil.
- rmc 13y ago
  Google 2003: "Don't be evil" Google 2010: "Evilness is hard to define" Google 2014: "We make military robots"
  - cbr 13y ago
    "Google executives said the company would honor existing military contracts, but that it did not plan to move toward becoming a military contractor on its own." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/technology/google-adds-to-its-menagerie-of-robots.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/technology/google-adds-to-... (Disclaimer: I work for Google.)
    - blueskin_ 13y ago
      Remember when google kept personal details private too? How long did that last, exactly?
      - cbr 13y ago
        Are you saying you think Boston Dynamics will go for more defense contracts, despite Google's claims that they won't?
- thelukester 13y ago
  In contrast to “Attack the evil that is within yourself, rather than attacking the evil that is in others.” ― Confucius It boils down to taking responsibility for your own actions. She took the effort to change her physical gender without much effort into changing her online identity. She didn't change her G+ profile and ignored google's warnings about using it.
dijit 13y ago
Sorry, why didn't they change their name on google, just like the bank, council tax documents and such. this information could have been easily gleaned when logged in to google, it's not necessarily googles fault if you provide them false or stale information and fail to change it.
- quarterto 13y ago
  FTFA: I don't remember actually giving this detail to Google, nor can I find anywhere within the settings where anything other than "Nora" is listed
  - ig1 13y ago
    There seems to be an implication that Google somehow obtained this information and added it to her account automatically, while this might be technically feasible I'm not aware of any actual claim that this is the case. Much more likely is that the user entered her real name when she signed up initially and just forgot about it (how many people here can recall what details they gave to MySpace or Yahoo a decade ago?)
    - darklajid 13y ago
      That's still missing the point. Even IF the user gave that information voluntarily in the past (she claims she didn't and we should believe her by default in my world, out of courtesy and respect) - the quote continues and says that there wasn't a setting to be found that referred to the wrong/unwanted name. IF that name was given previously the user still needs to have final say about her appearance online, her very own account data. Saying "You probably gave it out earlier and yeah, maybe there's no way to remove it from the history of your account" wouldn't make Google look better in any way.
      - ig1 13y ago
        No she doesn't. The exact quote is "I don't remember" which is completely different from "I didn't". That's the danger of implication, it makes you think one thing is meant while another is actually said.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
techsupporter 13y ago
This is why the whole "real name" trend is insane to me. Who gets to decide what my "real name" even is except for me? I have this problem on a MUCH more limited scale in that I go by my middle name--a shortened version at that--and have for almost all of my decades on this planet. However, for many services, I'm not allowed to use anything except my "legal name." This is a name that, I hasten to add, ought to include my middle name since it's ON MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE, unlike the souls from the article who are using a different yet still identifiable name for a very important reason. For some reason, "legal" or "real" name only seems to mean "the first and last words from the 'name' line on your identity document." Names are not intended to be unique or, frankly, immutable. A nickname, full name, shortened name, set of initials, or even a creative symbol can all stand for the same person and it's nobody's business, especially for a free "social" site, what relationship that string of letters has to that person. (I would like to reiterate that I am not putting "oops, can't use my middle name" on the same level as "holy cowbells, an intimate detail of my life was just revealed to coworkers and potentially-hostile reporters without my knowledge or consent." It's just a small point of overlap that gives me a tiny bit of insight.)
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  This, pretty much. I have a friend who had to change her (legal) name due to a stalker, and consequently never uses it anywhere online (she uses an alias on facebook).
  - aragot 13y ago
    Given that's a lie about her identity, she could be quickly distrusted if she ever appears in a court. And that's a preety huge consequence of the Real Name Policy.
    - delinka 13y ago
      "Changing a legal name" is a legal process and the result, a new name for the same person, is no more a lie than choosing a nickname for oneself. From a legal standpoint, the changed name is now a legally permissible "lie." This does not result in mistrust by a court because the legal system was involved in the change. Of course, all this assumes the "change in legal name" went through the legal process.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
SilkRoadie 13y ago
Google have indexed the Internet. They have indexed public roads (Street View). Both things are pretty useful. Pretty cool. The issue now is they want to index people.. pretty creepy. This can be seen with Google+ and the various inflexible policies it has towards Google accounts. Is Google "person search" really that far off? Already you can email anyone with a Google account right(?) How long before you put in a name and a town and you get Google+, Facebook, Twitter profiles along with posts related to that user from their public names and confirmed alias. The only way to opt out is to destroy your Google account which is a shame as gmail + docs are pretty awesome. I don't know how that would affect Android for the day to day user.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  Primarily only by not being able to use the play store, and having to disable the 'Google Contacts Sync' to store numbers locally without having google sniff them. Make a gmail account, add no personal data, and use it only for the playstore, and problem solved.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    It's really pissing me off that in CM11 (Android 4.4?), when I go to add a contact, the message is "your new contact will be synchronized with <google account>". As far as I can tell, the option to store numbers locally has been intentionally hidden (the only way I can think of to do it is create the information on a different phone, export it to a contacts file, and transfer the file...).
    - iam 13y ago
      Have you tried turning off Contacts synchronization in Settings > Accounts ?
      - thaumasiotes 13y ago
        Yep, but I still get the message.
jdsnape 13y ago
I was surprised by the tweet saying she was glad she lived in a state where it was illegal to fire her...does this imply there are states where it would be legal to fire someone who was transgender?
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  In a significant part of the US, you can fire people with no notice, with no recourse, for any/no reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Not for any reason. Even in at-will employment states, you cannot fire someone on the basis that you discovered they are Christian (or Muslim, or Polish, or an Army veteran) and you don't like Christians (or Muslims, or Poles, or vets). Some are federally protected categories (termination on the basis of race/ethnicity/religion/gender is banned nationally under the Civil Rights Act of 1964), while others are prohibited by state laws. The status of firing someone because they are transgender under federal law is in flux; the EEOC issued an interpretation in 2012 that the 1964 ban on gender-related employment discrimination covers employment discrimination on the basis of transgender status, but I'm not sure whether this has been upheld by courts. Of course, you can state no reason, and avoid leaving evidence of your real motivations, which might make it harder to prove: if you fire someone because you discovered they're Polish and you hate Poles, they can only win an unlawful-termination suit if they can prove that was the reason.
    - odiroot 13y ago
      What's up with the Poles? Is it a thing? Just curious, asking as a Pole.
      - rmc 13y ago
        It's probably an example of anti-racism law.
ritikk 13y ago
To pause the Google-hate, and the same G+ identity talk for just one second I'd like to point out that the details in that post are not accurate. First and most important - the linchpin to that whole post is wrong: Google's response was that her outing was "user error" - Google blamed her, the user for not understanding the new, confusing integration. That statement is untrue, the author is citing a previous reporting that never received any statement from Google: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/07/google-hangouts-faces-criticism-after-outing-trans-woman http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/07/google-han... Nonetheless the incident itself was self-inflicted: The trans woman in question flashed a ROM which skipped the usual disclaimer and notice about which identity will be used: https://twitter.com/eiridescent/status/419604310213672960 https://twitter.com/eiridescent/status/419604310213672960 Also it's very unfair to cavalierly invoke that Grantland tragedy and to choose that very provocative title to drive page views.
- darklajid 13y ago
  I tried following your arguments, but failed. The woman in question flashed CM11 and (official, unchanged, albeit unsupported/in a grey area if you grab them yourself?) GApps. G+ etc. is part of that and as far as I can tell and that is what the person in question states in the discussion you link. How do you know that 'The ROM'(?) 'skipped all disclaimer and notice about which identity will be used'? The Twitter link at least doesn't say that at all. Obviously you might have a point, but you didn't present it well/the facts given don't match what you claim to know.
  - ritikk 13y ago
    Because I got the disclaimer: http://www.groovypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hangouts-SMS-turn-on.png http://www.groovypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hangout... And another screen after it notifying me.
    - pilif 13y ago
      That screenshot doesn't seem to indicate to me that any change to any outgoing identity is to happen. The only thing it tells me is that I can use Hangouts to send SMS. I haven't used android in a while, so you still might very well be right, but the screenshot you've posted as an example doesn't tell us anything.
blueskin_ 13y ago
I'm starting to get seriously scared about Android 4.4 whenever it becomes more widespread. I use CyanogenMod, who should strip out some of the worst intrusions, but I guess with 4.4, I'll need a replacement dialer and SMS as I don't let Hangouts get anywhere near my phone, and the dialer will be sending numbers I call / get called by to google. I've looked at Handcent for SMS, but are there any privacy-focused dialer replacements?
- ritikk 13y ago
  Please don't buy into the FUD, there is plenty on control and notice about identity in hangouts: https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/3441321?hl=en https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/3441321?hl=en http://www.groovypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hangouts-SMS-turn-on.png http://www.groovypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hangout...
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    It's still not going onto my phone. Merging google+ into SMS is a bad idea, and dangerous to privacy no matter what options there are today that will likely disappear later. Google have consistently proven themselves hostile to privacy and user choice. I think if there's anything I'm not buying into, it's a new account which seems to only exist to promote Hangouts / google+.
    - ritikk2 13y ago
      I don’t' care what goes on your phone, I just care when the facts are misrepresented.
    - FireBeyond 13y ago
      I'm curious (not necessarily in relation to you specifically) what people's thoughts have been in a similar vein about iMessage vs SMS.
  - darklajid 13y ago
    You defended Hangouts elsewhere. Again I followed your links and don't find things that match your explanations. The second link is just a screenshot and I see nothing concerning 'identities' there. It wants to replace SMS and you can accept or deny? Granted, one should click on that learn more button before accepting that - I don't know what hides behind that link. Maybe it is the first link you posted? That .. doesn't seem to say a thing about identities either, unless you mean the single paragraph about being able to select among multiple accounts, should you be signed in to more than one? I didn't watch the video, maybe that one offers more, but so far I don't think FUD is the right term here..
tdicola 13y ago
I'd love to know what benefits the real name system has been providing users. It seems like it's causing more outrage and problems (i.e. recent Youtube comment redesign) than actual good.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  It lets google scrape more data to profit from. Oh, you meant benefit to users? None. They're the product as far as google is concerned.
- junto 13y ago
  Now the advertisers and the NSA know who tdicola really is. That's the point of real names as far as I can see.
nemof 13y ago
a deep lack of understanding and empathy from some here. whether or not someone fucks up because they fail to understand how a service works shouldn't result in them getting outed in a way that can be deeply damaging to them. The lack of care and foresight that google are showing is reprehensible.
- leoedin 13y ago
  How does Google know what information would be deeply damaging to them? Perhaps it's obvious in this case, but everyone has different secrets. Short of not sharing any information at all about anyone, there will always be the potential for damaging information to be shared. I'm no fan of Google's creeping profile integration, but to say: > Whether or not someone fucks up because they fail to understand how a service works shouldn't result in them getting outed in a way that can be deeply damaging to them. is ludicrous. If I don't understand how my Facebook status update works and type damaging secrets into that, is that Facebook's fault? Eventually there has to be some level of user responsibility to not share information that will be damaging to them.
  - yaddayadda 13y ago
    "Short of not sharing any information at all about anyone..." Agreed! And online services, like Google and Facebook, should NOT be sharing ANY information with ANYONE without EXPLICIT permission from the person who's information it is. I may want to share a photo of a me at a party with a sub-set of my friends, that doesn't mean that I want that photo to be available to my mother or to a potential employee 50 years from now. When G+ started they introduced 'circles' which encapsulates this concept, and I was happy. Since google combined all google services under single user name -without giving users a choice in the matter- they lost my support. With the exception of gmail, I've stopped using google services; and as soon as I find an alternative to gmail that meets my needs I'm dropping that. And I haven't used facebook in many years, for the same privacy control reasons.
    - leoedin 13y ago
      Anyone even vaguely knowledgeable about technology knows what these company's business models are. They involve targeting adverts at you based on the information (directly supplied or assumed) that they have on you. In Google's case it's been this way for over a decade. This isn't news. If you have information which is likely to damage you significantly, don't share it on the platforms they provide. Encrypt it. I can't be the only one who's accidentally shared things as public on Facebook. Assume that something you share via these sites (rather than send via a single receipiant message or similar) is semi-public, because history has shown that it often is.
johnchristopher 13y ago
That article doesn't make any sense. I have to read each paragraphs two or three times and take mental notes to deduce who's who and who's doing what to who.
- DangerousPie 13y ago
  The author's name definitely rings a bell. I can't recall the details, but I am pretty sure she has been associated with quite a few articles like this on HN in the past, most of which were horribly written and turned out to be largely false or exaggerated. Does anybody still have a link for one of them?
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    I wish we'd have a way to store such instances somewhere and connect it to a browser plugin or something, so that when one opens an article a message is shown: "The author of an article has a history of exaggerating, writing falsehood and outright lying. See [link] for details."
    - tragic 13y ago
      I suppose you could use this: https://plus.google.com/authorship https://plus.google.com/authorship
    - violet_blue 13y ago
      Clarification: are you suggesting that I have "a history of exaggerating, writing falsehood and outright lying"? If yes, please explain.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    I've read a few of her articles and they have all been lousy. Not spectacularly lousy, just as lousy as many mnay other articles. But this article, although terribly written, does have so e really important information: Google has a bunch of products. I signup to them using different names. I have no idea how to control what name is used for what service. Ideally we'd have either a single control panel allowing is to set the name that is used for each service, or an easy to access control panel for each service. In the UK I am legally allowed to use whatever name I like so long as I do not have the intention to defraud people. This makes Google's weird complicated system really annoying.
adnam 13y ago
The worst part for me is Bill Simmons apology in Grantland[*]. With phrases like "we definitely screwed up", "moving forward", "we appreciated the dialogue", it reads more like a server-outage postmortem, rather than a somber response to the death of a person. Also, the article 2769 words too long, which is about 2700 too many. http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-the-editor/ http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-t...
- rmc 13y ago
  A not-pology. "I'm sorry you were hurt" when you should say "I'm sorry I hurt you"
  - nmeofthestate 13y ago
    I think this is unfair - the author isn't responsible for a suicidal (from past incidents before the journalist every was involved) and clearly mentally-ill person spinning a web of lies about their life (lies about where she worked, studied etc, that aren't related to her gender) and as a result provoking curiosity about their claims by a journalist who has got his teeth into a fascinating story. That's all a separate issue from the person's decision to change gender (apologies if this is the wrong verb to describe what she did, I don't intend it to be).
    - lectrick 13y ago
      People are vulnerable. And there is a lot of... cruft, attached to sex changes. And not only that, it appears that some family members essentially cut him/her off. So, that's basically a lot of pain all tied up in with the decision to sex-change. I don't think any of us would have an easy time imagining ourselves in those shoes, but I'd bet that many of us would have an even harder time dealing with it, given how closely we cling to our specific gender trappings. Some sensitivity to this may have helped. It would be easier for a person to be honest with the world if the world (and her family, apparently) at least accepted, if not completely understood (because ultimately, it's so subjective that you barely can), gender-change decisions like that.
- 13y ago
raverbashing 13y ago
Can't we disable G+ Can't we force Google to disable G+? For example, Google has been know to be trigger happy and thinking art works were porn. Or just put an obviously fake name on G+ and let it fall on the "Real Name policy" Or just quit Google altogether, there. Maybe create then a new account on Google with a fake name.
- darklajid 13y ago
  Yes, you can disable G+ (on Android, at least). GTalk/Hangouts can be used with a standard XMPP client - at least somewhat usable and For Now™. Plus, if you're into CM (as the outed woman was, ironically) you'll get the recommendation to use TextSecure for SMS messages, not Hangout. I have all these apps/services (Hangout, G+, Google Music, Google Books and probably a bit more) disabled on my phone, so it is definitely doable. I am not sure if it is reasonable and I don't think it should be required to avoid this .. crap.
eXpl0it3r 13y ago
It's always easy to blame someone else, especially if that "someone" is already being hated on by a lot of people. Google only knows as much information as you give them [edit: is publicly available or can be bought from someone else]. Using a mobile OS that integrates many services from Google, without doing proper research on what these services are allowed to actually do and then blaming Google for using the data, you agreed to let them use, is just wrong. People just started to forget: Everything comes with a price. Whether it's money, viewing ads or providing personal information, in the end a product is never truly free.
- gcp 13y ago
  Google only knows as much information as you give them Google also knows all the information anyone else gave them.
  - eXpl0it3r 13y ago
    Added: ", is publicly available or can be bought from someone else"
  - girvo 13y ago
    Yes, but that cat is well and truly out of that bag, so (for me, personally) it's time to take as many precautions as I can. One of those is being very careful around Google services. I've since replaced my use of all of them (thank you ownCloud, and DAV!). I've got far fewer consequences to worry about than other people, but for me the trade off is worth it.
- aragot 13y ago
  They don't have to integrate all those services. Look at Mozilla Persona. Eroding privacy has a much bigger cost than the one Google extracts fom the information. And it's not like we can choose to avoid androids, samsungs and iPhones...
sushirain 13y ago
It is NOT true that I can avoid opening a Google Plus/Facebook account, and thus protect my privacy. Google/Facebook has been striving to integrate the public account with many important services. Google/Facebook are a monopoly/very dominant in email, social networks, navigation, smartphones, etc. Some online services already require a Google/Facebook account. Your social media account determines your credit score[1], or can get/deny you a job position. This is going to get more widespread. A social media account has become mandatory, and the law should step in to protect our privacy and safety. [1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304773104579266423512930050 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230477310...
- mkesper 13y ago
  I would not betrust anybody with my money who forced me to have a Google/Facebook/whatev account.
  - gcp 13y ago
    You can have your employer use Google services and consequently require you to create a Google account.
    - blueskin_ 13y ago
      You mean google apps? They give you one as part of it.
    - aaronem 13y ago
      What's to stop you from creating a Google account specifically for that purpose? Worked for me.
      - normloman 13y ago
        Yeah just make a Google+ account for work. And when Google asks for your real name, and nobody at works knows you're transgender, what do you do? Put in your legal name that's still set to your old gender? Put in your new name that Google rejects because it doesn't match the name on your phone bill / credit card / whatever. Put in a fake name and wait until your account gets deleted?
rmc 13y ago
Some LGBT rights organisations rank companies by how LGB and/or T friendly the organisation is to companies. Large tech companies often come out quite good. These rankings should start including factors that affect the customers of the company, which means Google would start losing rankings due to actions like this.
- sentenza 13y ago
  The rights organizations should award negative prizes to the worst-behaving companies and organizations, bundled at a well-publicizable awards event. This generates bad press on those companies, which in turn might do some good. I see some candidates for such awards right there in the article.
tomp 13y ago
> And, seems to me, we still have this (white) male dominated journalism elite, with their myopic, pseudo-macho ideas of what truth and the pursuit of it means. What a nice way to plug in some generalizing, offensive, misandric comments.
- tone 13y ago
  Yeah things like that are a good way to immediately discredit any other content you had, regardless of its legitimacy. I also read the word "triggering". A term I can never seem to figure out in it's context. It seems some people believe they (at least ought to) exist in some Utopian society where everyone should know what may upset everyone else (even in the slightest way) and endeavour to avoid at all costs. I mean it's maybe a nice concept on the whole, but the over intricate levels these people take it to are ridiculous. The whole article smacks of entitlement. Simplifying a name, or even a gender is not a personal attack or an attempt at discrimination, it's just in truth a simple system. If you use ten names and five genders, then why the hell should things like this cater to you? Not specifically to ignore you, but if everyone has these over indulgent massively personal requirements then all cannot be fulfilled. I'm sure there are people in the same situation that haven't had this problem, so how it isn't user error is beyond me. It's a free service...
  - tomp 13y ago
    I, on the other hand, agree with the article, apart from the quote above. More of my reasons here: [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7108133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7108133
  - normloman 13y ago
    We can't walk on eggshells all day because anything we say could trigger someone's traumatic memory. But use some common sense. If you're gonna talk about rape, murder, suicide, and your audience may not expect it, ... maybe give people a warning. Also - entitlement schmitlement. Expecting a company to handle your personal information discretely is a reasonable expectation. When Google acted recklessly with peoples private information, they violated their users trust.
Mikeb85 13y ago
The Google bashing is getting old. This is yet more evidence that you should be aware of how one service will use the information you give it, and that you should be careful with what information you enter on the internet, no matter what...
- chilldream 13y ago
  Yeah, you really should have considered what Google would put on their social network when you signed up for an email account a decade ago before "social network" was even a thing.
  - FireBeyond 13y ago
    What a baseless statement. Gmail started April 2004. Facebook started February 2004. At which time Myspace was a year old. Let's not be disingenuous and throw around nonsensical claims like "when you signed up for an email account a decade before "social network" was even a thing"...
    - chilldream 13y ago
      -You're parsing that sentence wrong; note the word "ago". -"social network" is in quotes because while the social networks themselves have been around for awhile, they only became a buzzword and the kind of thing Google would try to clumsily emulate in recent years.
- dhimes 13y ago
  I agree with your second sentence, not your first. I think that the only way people, even smart people, are going to comprehend what the hell is going on is by these 'bashing' sessions. Most people will see the headline and say, "Well, I'm ok with the service. Not a problem I can anticipate." It's only when more imaginative, knowledgeable people, who are also able prognosticate and clearly articulate the possible consequences, have this dialog that there is a chance it will catch peoples' attention. Even then, the odds are long and grim, but the discussion is necessary. Otherwise, most people just don't get it. Many people on this thread are saying things to the effect of "I lost all trust in Google." I honestly wonder how people could ever fully "trust" them, in the sense that they are not going to look out for their own bottom line- or, more accurately, look out for things that will increase the value of their stock. And that usually means opening up new revenue streams. And for them, that means more ways to get advertisers interested in advertising with them. And that means, of course, giving them more access to their dear users. It's the same with any public company, but especially high-profile ones who are likely to attract 'active' investors. Since companies don't usually pay dividends on their stocks anymore, the only way the piece of paper that I paid upwards of $1200 for is to convince some idiot to give me $1300 for it. Otherwise, I want someone to be fired because they've cost me a lot of money.
hartator 13y ago
Vic Gundotra. Please, get this guy fired. G+ is the biggest failure of Google. It has destroyed gmail chat with hangouts. Youtube with stupid G+ comment integration. It's slow, privacy unfriendly (to say the least, this present article is sadly crazy!), technically weak and socially awkward. They even fuck up the search, even the search!, with a strong bias on G+ "likes" and G+ authorship. The Internet needs blood... now.
- myko 13y ago
  > It has destroyed gmail chat with hangouts. Youtube with stupid G+ comment integration. These are pretty much huge improvements over the previous implementations though? >They even fuck up the search, even the search! I've personally found this useful on many occasions. True, I wish they could integrate with Twitter like they did before, but that's going to take coordination with Twitter. What would you improve regarding search/G+?
Nanzikambe 13y ago
I think many posters here are missing the real problem here, Google is taking liberties with (y)our personal data. Hiding behind the excuse that you could opt out, or that informational leakage is a user problem is disingenuous and can be illustrated by the simple analogy to a telephone directory: If your telephone directory suddenly arbitrarily decided to indicate beside a listing (a listing you may not have requested) your sexual orientation, gender, criminal history or political affiliation. Would that be ok? I think the answer is a clear and resounding "no!", and the underlying issue one that Google must address immediately and definitively. I've been migrating away from Google for the past six months or so, but this has now pushed that to the top of my priorities. So much for "do no evil"
omegaworks 13y ago
Does anyone know of any guidelines for creating software that is trans-inclusive?
antidaily 13y ago
I though the Grantland writer outed her to an investor. Sure, Google aided in that, but that was the whole issue.
fuckpig 13y ago
I was very much into this article until the end, when they started blaming white males for all their problems.
abvdasker 13y ago
While it's obviously very unfortunate that all this happened, this is not the full story. The words, "Hannan told her he was going to break the agreement not to write about her personal life and reveal her transgender status without her consent," are a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. Also, it's a lot of misdirected anger. The reporter's job is to get the story — and in this case Hannan's editors admit they pushed him to do so. http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-the-editor/ http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-t...
- __pThrow 13y ago
  It's hard to defend grantland after they wrote a 2900 word apology, but Dr. V + wasn't a doctor + claimed her putter worked on "magical" physics but it didn't + claimed she was an MIT professor who invented bluetooth and worked on the B2 and had top secret classifications + claimed she was a Vanderbilt + claimed because she was a Vanderbilt she has special relationships with Hilton + claimed her special relationships with Hilton could be used to get access to Hilton golf courses and Hilton customers And had at least one investor who said he lost $60,000 of his money I think this amounts to fraud. I think that changes the story from "marvelous putter" to con artists defrauding investors and consumers. I think that when you commit crimes and especially the crime of fraud it becomes very germane what your history is because you may have defrauded other people in the past. I think no matter who you are if you have a secret you don't want out the best advice is not to commit crimes. I don't know where in the priority for the local DA or the SEC defrauding an investor of $60,000 is, but it seems to have been ignored by everyone eager to take offense at how this article was written.
Pxtl 13y ago
I'd like to think that Google Plus/Hangouts/etc will go down as one of the biggest bungles social networking, but thankfully we have things like Digg and MySpace to point to for worse. If any start-up or other smaller business had screwed up this badly, they would be bankrupt. Google survives this only because it's not their main revenue source. I used to be a big Google fanboy, and I still buy Android stuff because it's the biggest OSS platform in its space. But Google has fallen. Not because they're spying on us, not because they're "evil" or something, but because they suck at the big moves. They're scatterbrained and clumsy and they screw up incessantly. And then defend the obviously-bad decisions as "user error" when their platform is obviously inscrutable for users. I just set up my wife with a fresh android phone and the process was miserable. There were days of it asking her to register for Plus ("I thought I already had a Plus account") or install some Maps support gadget ("I thought I already had Maps") and tedious errors. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good user experience. Google never planned to "out" this woman. That's the thing to remember. Google never sat down and said "we want to expose every transperson". They just screwed up. Because they suck. They ask repeatedly permission for dumb things that don't need permission, and then they wander over and make clumsy, grotesque changes without considering the consequences. The whole "Social Layer" thing was a great idea, really. Google needed a Disqus-like platform to integrate across all their services. But they completely dropped the ball on implementation. It's too opinionated about things it shouldn't be. If you're running a single site, you can be opinionated and say "Real Names Please". If you're running a framework you need to let the users and page-owners set the agenda.
pstack 13y ago
I think everyone on the internet should be forced to use their real identity, except for me, because I have a completely legitimate reason for wanting privacy and anonymity!
stesch 13y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7012832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7012832 The original link was filtered/blocked on Hacker News. 19 days ago. :-(

Google outed me

246 points by Sanddancer 13y ago

linux_devil 13y ago

In contrast with tag line : "Don't be evil"

troels 13y ago
It doesn't seem like this was intentional in any way. I don't think that counts as being "evil".
- gnaffle 13y ago
  It doesn't have to be intentional to be evil. But, 1) The decision to require a full name and gender was intentional 2) The decision to merge multiple accounts under the Google+ umbrella was intentional 3) The decision to automate this merging was also intentional. I've myself been caught off guard with Google storing my search history on one of my customers' Google account because I forgot to log out after managing their AdWords account. Stupid me, right? But just as with Facebook, they've lost my trust. I'm not alone, and I think it will come back to bite them in the end.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  "Don't be careless?"
  - thrown7779 13y ago
    "Don't underestimate the ability of some segment of the population to be offended by something you do. Whatever you do, you'll offend someone." Being offended is an epidemic...
    - marquis 13y ago
      Being offended is a moral issue and I agree, as a business you can't fight that 100%. However, being forced to conform to a business's view of your identity is unethical, especially as Google changed the rules - if they had indicated this might happen then those affected could have chosen not to use Plus.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - xenophanes 13y ago
      They seriously hurt a lot of people in a very predictable and avoidable way, and are not interested in fixing the harm they've done. And you're whitewashing it without giving any substantive answer to the points in the linked article.
      - thrown7779 13y ago
        If you don't want to be "outed" by google, why give google the information needed to do that? Is creating 2 separate google accounts impossible these days?
        blueskin_ 13y ago
        No, but google will do all it can to link them.
        Casseres 13y ago
        I thought I had two separate accounts for YouTube and Gmail. Not anymore. I used my Gmail address to register an account with YouTube. What prevents them in the future from buying some company, and link those accounts because I use the same credit card or some other supposedly unique identifier?
        gnaffle 13y ago
        AFAIK it's required by the new terms that you give your real name. And to do much of anything you need to verify your account with an SMS to a previously unused cell phone number.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        I had two separate accounts. Google merged them despite my telling them not to. Seems to me HN covered this: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/VZSLjkdqksG https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/VZSLjkdq... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6745525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6745525 http://i.imgur.com/YgEjUuI.jpg http://i.imgur.com/YgEjUuI.jpg Google's proven it cannot be trusted to respect user choice, nor to not arbitrarily change the rules at a later date.
    - blueskin_ 13y ago
      So's privacy intrusion.
    - JulianMorrison 13y ago
      It isn't "offended" to be outed amidst transphobic people, it's "endangered". I wish we lived in a society so safe it would only be "offended".
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  Google ditched that motto a long, long time ago. Now it's "Don't be evil to our profits".
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  It requires positing an extraordinary degree of ignorance on the part of Google to support the contrary view. After all, people have always had the option to use their real names, they've simply chosen not to - presumably before making the change you'd make some attempt to look into why people would choose that way.
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  "Negligent with other people's lives due to unexamined privilege" is a subset of evil.
rmc 13y ago
Google 2003: "Don't be evil" Google 2010: "Evilness is hard to define" Google 2014: "We make military robots"
- cbr 13y ago
  "Google executives said the company would honor existing military contracts, but that it did not plan to move toward becoming a military contractor on its own." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/technology/google-adds-to-its-menagerie-of-robots.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/technology/google-adds-to-... (Disclaimer: I work for Google.)
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    Remember when google kept personal details private too? How long did that last, exactly?
    - cbr 13y ago
      Are you saying you think Boston Dynamics will go for more defense contracts, despite Google's claims that they won't?
thelukester 13y ago
In contrast to “Attack the evil that is within yourself, rather than attacking the evil that is in others.” ― Confucius It boils down to taking responsibility for your own actions. She took the effort to change her physical gender without much effort into changing her online identity. She didn't change her G+ profile and ignored google's warnings about using it.

dijit 13y ago

Sorry, why didn't they change their name on google, just like the bank, council tax documents and such. this information could have been easily gleaned when logged in to google, it's not necessarily googles fault if you provide them false or stale information and fail to change it.

quarterto 13y ago
FTFA: I don't remember actually giving this detail to Google, nor can I find anywhere within the settings where anything other than "Nora" is listed
- ig1 13y ago
  There seems to be an implication that Google somehow obtained this information and added it to her account automatically, while this might be technically feasible I'm not aware of any actual claim that this is the case. Much more likely is that the user entered her real name when she signed up initially and just forgot about it (how many people here can recall what details they gave to MySpace or Yahoo a decade ago?)
  - darklajid 13y ago
    That's still missing the point. Even IF the user gave that information voluntarily in the past (she claims she didn't and we should believe her by default in my world, out of courtesy and respect) - the quote continues and says that there wasn't a setting to be found that referred to the wrong/unwanted name. IF that name was given previously the user still needs to have final say about her appearance online, her very own account data. Saying "You probably gave it out earlier and yeah, maybe there's no way to remove it from the history of your account" wouldn't make Google look better in any way.
    - ig1 13y ago
      No she doesn't. The exact quote is "I don't remember" which is completely different from "I didn't". That's the danger of implication, it makes you think one thing is meant while another is actually said.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

techsupporter 13y ago

This is why the whole "real name" trend is insane to me. Who gets to decide what my "real name" even is except for me? I have this problem on a MUCH more limited scale in that I go by my middle name--a shortened version at that--and have for almost all of my decades on this planet. However, for many services, I'm not allowed to use anything except my "legal name." This is a name that, I hasten to add, ought to include my middle name since it's ON MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE, unlike the souls from the article who are using a different yet still identifiable name for a very important reason. For some reason, "legal" or "real" name only seems to mean "the first and last words from the 'name' line on your identity document." Names are not intended to be unique or, frankly, immutable. A nickname, full name, shortened name, set of initials, or even a creative symbol can all stand for the same person and it's nobody's business, especially for a free "social" site, what relationship that string of letters has to that person. (I would like to reiterate that I am not putting "oops, can't use my middle name" on the same level as "holy cowbells, an intimate detail of my life was just revealed to coworkers and potentially-hostile reporters without my knowledge or consent." It's just a small point of overlap that gives me a tiny bit of insight.)

Cthulhu_ 13y ago
This, pretty much. I have a friend who had to change her (legal) name due to a stalker, and consequently never uses it anywhere online (she uses an alias on facebook).
- aragot 13y ago
  Given that's a lie about her identity, she could be quickly distrusted if she ever appears in a court. And that's a preety huge consequence of the Real Name Policy.
  - delinka 13y ago
    "Changing a legal name" is a legal process and the result, a new name for the same person, is no more a lie than choosing a nickname for oneself. From a legal standpoint, the changed name is now a legally permissible "lie." This does not result in mistrust by a court because the legal system was involved in the change. Of course, all this assumes the "change in legal name" went through the legal process.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

SilkRoadie 13y ago

Google have indexed the Internet. They have indexed public roads (Street View). Both things are pretty useful. Pretty cool. The issue now is they want to index people.. pretty creepy. This can be seen with Google+ and the various inflexible policies it has towards Google accounts. Is Google "person search" really that far off? Already you can email anyone with a Google account right(?) How long before you put in a name and a town and you get Google+, Facebook, Twitter profiles along with posts related to that user from their public names and confirmed alias. The only way to opt out is to destroy your Google account which is a shame as gmail + docs are pretty awesome. I don't know how that would affect Android for the day to day user.

blueskin_ 13y ago
Primarily only by not being able to use the play store, and having to disable the 'Google Contacts Sync' to store numbers locally without having google sniff them. Make a gmail account, add no personal data, and use it only for the playstore, and problem solved.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  It's really pissing me off that in CM11 (Android 4.4?), when I go to add a contact, the message is "your new contact will be synchronized with <google account>". As far as I can tell, the option to store numbers locally has been intentionally hidden (the only way I can think of to do it is create the information on a different phone, export it to a contacts file, and transfer the file...).
  - iam 13y ago
    Have you tried turning off Contacts synchronization in Settings > Accounts ?
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      Yep, but I still get the message.

jdsnape 13y ago

I was surprised by the tweet saying she was glad she lived in a state where it was illegal to fire her...does this imply there are states where it would be legal to fire someone who was transgender?

blueskin_ 13y ago
In a significant part of the US, you can fire people with no notice, with no recourse, for any/no reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
- _delirium 13y ago
  Not for any reason. Even in at-will employment states, you cannot fire someone on the basis that you discovered they are Christian (or Muslim, or Polish, or an Army veteran) and you don't like Christians (or Muslims, or Poles, or vets). Some are federally protected categories (termination on the basis of race/ethnicity/religion/gender is banned nationally under the Civil Rights Act of 1964), while others are prohibited by state laws. The status of firing someone because they are transgender under federal law is in flux; the EEOC issued an interpretation in 2012 that the 1964 ban on gender-related employment discrimination covers employment discrimination on the basis of transgender status, but I'm not sure whether this has been upheld by courts. Of course, you can state no reason, and avoid leaving evidence of your real motivations, which might make it harder to prove: if you fire someone because you discovered they're Polish and you hate Poles, they can only win an unlawful-termination suit if they can prove that was the reason.
  - odiroot 13y ago
    What's up with the Poles? Is it a thing? Just curious, asking as a Pole.
    - rmc 13y ago
      It's probably an example of anti-racism law.

ritikk 13y ago

To pause the Google-hate, and the same G+ identity talk for just one second I'd like to point out that the details in that post are not accurate. First and most important - the linchpin to that whole post is wrong: Google's response was that her outing was "user error" - Google blamed her, the user for not understanding the new, confusing integration. That statement is untrue, the author is citing a previous reporting that never received any statement from Google: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/07/google-hangouts-faces-criticism-after-outing-trans-woman http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/07/google-han... Nonetheless the incident itself was self-inflicted: The trans woman in question flashed a ROM which skipped the usual disclaimer and notice about which identity will be used: https://twitter.com/eiridescent/status/419604310213672960 https://twitter.com/eiridescent/status/419604310213672960 Also it's very unfair to cavalierly invoke that Grantland tragedy and to choose that very provocative title to drive page views.

darklajid 13y ago
I tried following your arguments, but failed. The woman in question flashed CM11 and (official, unchanged, albeit unsupported/in a grey area if you grab them yourself?) GApps. G+ etc. is part of that and as far as I can tell and that is what the person in question states in the discussion you link. How do you know that 'The ROM'(?) 'skipped all disclaimer and notice about which identity will be used'? The Twitter link at least doesn't say that at all. Obviously you might have a point, but you didn't present it well/the facts given don't match what you claim to know.
- ritikk 13y ago
  Because I got the disclaimer: http://www.groovypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hangouts-SMS-turn-on.png http://www.groovypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hangout... And another screen after it notifying me.
  - pilif 13y ago
    That screenshot doesn't seem to indicate to me that any change to any outgoing identity is to happen. The only thing it tells me is that I can use Hangouts to send SMS. I haven't used android in a while, so you still might very well be right, but the screenshot you've posted as an example doesn't tell us anything.

blueskin_ 13y ago

I'm starting to get seriously scared about Android 4.4 whenever it becomes more widespread. I use CyanogenMod, who should strip out some of the worst intrusions, but I guess with 4.4, I'll need a replacement dialer and SMS as I don't let Hangouts get anywhere near my phone, and the dialer will be sending numbers I call / get called by to google. I've looked at Handcent for SMS, but are there any privacy-focused dialer replacements?

ritikk 13y ago
Please don't buy into the FUD, there is plenty on control and notice about identity in hangouts: https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/3441321?hl=en https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/3441321?hl=en http://www.groovypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hangouts-SMS-turn-on.png http://www.groovypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hangout...
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  It's still not going onto my phone. Merging google+ into SMS is a bad idea, and dangerous to privacy no matter what options there are today that will likely disappear later. Google have consistently proven themselves hostile to privacy and user choice. I think if there's anything I'm not buying into, it's a new account which seems to only exist to promote Hangouts / google+.
  - ritikk2 13y ago
    I don’t' care what goes on your phone, I just care when the facts are misrepresented.
  - FireBeyond 13y ago
    I'm curious (not necessarily in relation to you specifically) what people's thoughts have been in a similar vein about iMessage vs SMS.
- darklajid 13y ago
  You defended Hangouts elsewhere. Again I followed your links and don't find things that match your explanations. The second link is just a screenshot and I see nothing concerning 'identities' there. It wants to replace SMS and you can accept or deny? Granted, one should click on that learn more button before accepting that - I don't know what hides behind that link. Maybe it is the first link you posted? That .. doesn't seem to say a thing about identities either, unless you mean the single paragraph about being able to select among multiple accounts, should you be signed in to more than one? I didn't watch the video, maybe that one offers more, but so far I don't think FUD is the right term here..

tdicola 13y ago

I'd love to know what benefits the real name system has been providing users. It seems like it's causing more outrage and problems (i.e. recent Youtube comment redesign) than actual good.

blueskin_ 13y ago
It lets google scrape more data to profit from. Oh, you meant benefit to users? None. They're the product as far as google is concerned.
junto 13y ago
Now the advertisers and the NSA know who tdicola really is. That's the point of real names as far as I can see.

nemof 13y ago

a deep lack of understanding and empathy from some here. whether or not someone fucks up because they fail to understand how a service works shouldn't result in them getting outed in a way that can be deeply damaging to them. The lack of care and foresight that google are showing is reprehensible.

leoedin 13y ago
How does Google know what information would be deeply damaging to them? Perhaps it's obvious in this case, but everyone has different secrets. Short of not sharing any information at all about anyone, there will always be the potential for damaging information to be shared. I'm no fan of Google's creeping profile integration, but to say: > Whether or not someone fucks up because they fail to understand how a service works shouldn't result in them getting outed in a way that can be deeply damaging to them. is ludicrous. If I don't understand how my Facebook status update works and type damaging secrets into that, is that Facebook's fault? Eventually there has to be some level of user responsibility to not share information that will be damaging to them.
- yaddayadda 13y ago
  "Short of not sharing any information at all about anyone..." Agreed! And online services, like Google and Facebook, should NOT be sharing ANY information with ANYONE without EXPLICIT permission from the person who's information it is. I may want to share a photo of a me at a party with a sub-set of my friends, that doesn't mean that I want that photo to be available to my mother or to a potential employee 50 years from now. When G+ started they introduced 'circles' which encapsulates this concept, and I was happy. Since google combined all google services under single user name -without giving users a choice in the matter- they lost my support. With the exception of gmail, I've stopped using google services; and as soon as I find an alternative to gmail that meets my needs I'm dropping that. And I haven't used facebook in many years, for the same privacy control reasons.
  - leoedin 13y ago
    Anyone even vaguely knowledgeable about technology knows what these company's business models are. They involve targeting adverts at you based on the information (directly supplied or assumed) that they have on you. In Google's case it's been this way for over a decade. This isn't news. If you have information which is likely to damage you significantly, don't share it on the platforms they provide. Encrypt it. I can't be the only one who's accidentally shared things as public on Facebook. Assume that something you share via these sites (rather than send via a single receipiant message or similar) is semi-public, because history has shown that it often is.

johnchristopher 13y ago

That article doesn't make any sense. I have to read each paragraphs two or three times and take mental notes to deduce who's who and who's doing what to who.

DangerousPie 13y ago
The author's name definitely rings a bell. I can't recall the details, but I am pretty sure she has been associated with quite a few articles like this on HN in the past, most of which were horribly written and turned out to be largely false or exaggerated. Does anybody still have a link for one of them?
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  I wish we'd have a way to store such instances somewhere and connect it to a browser plugin or something, so that when one opens an article a message is shown: "The author of an article has a history of exaggerating, writing falsehood and outright lying. See [link] for details."
  - tragic 13y ago
    I suppose you could use this: https://plus.google.com/authorship https://plus.google.com/authorship
  - violet_blue 13y ago
    Clarification: are you suggesting that I have "a history of exaggerating, writing falsehood and outright lying"? If yes, please explain.
- DanBC 13y ago
  I've read a few of her articles and they have all been lousy. Not spectacularly lousy, just as lousy as many mnay other articles. But this article, although terribly written, does have so e really important information: Google has a bunch of products. I signup to them using different names. I have no idea how to control what name is used for what service. Ideally we'd have either a single control panel allowing is to set the name that is used for each service, or an easy to access control panel for each service. In the UK I am legally allowed to use whatever name I like so long as I do not have the intention to defraud people. This makes Google's weird complicated system really annoying.

adnam 13y ago

The worst part for me is Bill Simmons apology in Grantland[*]. With phrases like "we definitely screwed up", "moving forward", "we appreciated the dialogue", it reads more like a server-outage postmortem, rather than a somber response to the death of a person. Also, the article 2769 words too long, which is about 2700 too many. http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-the-editor/ http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-t...

rmc 13y ago
A not-pology. "I'm sorry you were hurt" when you should say "I'm sorry I hurt you"
- nmeofthestate 13y ago
  I think this is unfair - the author isn't responsible for a suicidal (from past incidents before the journalist every was involved) and clearly mentally-ill person spinning a web of lies about their life (lies about where she worked, studied etc, that aren't related to her gender) and as a result provoking curiosity about their claims by a journalist who has got his teeth into a fascinating story. That's all a separate issue from the person's decision to change gender (apologies if this is the wrong verb to describe what she did, I don't intend it to be).
  - lectrick 13y ago
    People are vulnerable. And there is a lot of... cruft, attached to sex changes. And not only that, it appears that some family members essentially cut him/her off. So, that's basically a lot of pain all tied up in with the decision to sex-change. I don't think any of us would have an easy time imagining ourselves in those shoes, but I'd bet that many of us would have an even harder time dealing with it, given how closely we cling to our specific gender trappings. Some sensitivity to this may have helped. It would be easier for a person to be honest with the world if the world (and her family, apparently) at least accepted, if not completely understood (because ultimately, it's so subjective that you barely can), gender-change decisions like that.
13y ago

raverbashing 13y ago

Can't we disable G+ Can't we force Google to disable G+? For example, Google has been know to be trigger happy and thinking art works were porn. Or just put an obviously fake name on G+ and let it fall on the "Real Name policy" Or just quit Google altogether, there. Maybe create then a new account on Google with a fake name.

darklajid 13y ago
Yes, you can disable G+ (on Android, at least). GTalk/Hangouts can be used with a standard XMPP client - at least somewhat usable and For Now™. Plus, if you're into CM (as the outed woman was, ironically) you'll get the recommendation to use TextSecure for SMS messages, not Hangout. I have all these apps/services (Hangout, G+, Google Music, Google Books and probably a bit more) disabled on my phone, so it is definitely doable. I am not sure if it is reasonable and I don't think it should be required to avoid this .. crap.

eXpl0it3r 13y ago

It's always easy to blame someone else, especially if that "someone" is already being hated on by a lot of people. Google only knows as much information as you give them [edit: is publicly available or can be bought from someone else]. Using a mobile OS that integrates many services from Google, without doing proper research on what these services are allowed to actually do and then blaming Google for using the data, you agreed to let them use, is just wrong. People just started to forget: Everything comes with a price. Whether it's money, viewing ads or providing personal information, in the end a product is never truly free.

gcp 13y ago
Google only knows as much information as you give them Google also knows all the information anyone else gave them.
- eXpl0it3r 13y ago
  Added: ", is publicly available or can be bought from someone else"
- girvo 13y ago
  Yes, but that cat is well and truly out of that bag, so (for me, personally) it's time to take as many precautions as I can. One of those is being very careful around Google services. I've since replaced my use of all of them (thank you ownCloud, and DAV!). I've got far fewer consequences to worry about than other people, but for me the trade off is worth it.
aragot 13y ago
They don't have to integrate all those services. Look at Mozilla Persona. Eroding privacy has a much bigger cost than the one Google extracts fom the information. And it's not like we can choose to avoid androids, samsungs and iPhones...

sushirain 13y ago

It is NOT true that I can avoid opening a Google Plus/Facebook account, and thus protect my privacy. Google/Facebook has been striving to integrate the public account with many important services. Google/Facebook are a monopoly/very dominant in email, social networks, navigation, smartphones, etc. Some online services already require a Google/Facebook account. Your social media account determines your credit score[1], or can get/deny you a job position. This is going to get more widespread. A social media account has become mandatory, and the law should step in to protect our privacy and safety. [1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304773104579266423512930050 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230477310...

mkesper 13y ago
I would not betrust anybody with my money who forced me to have a Google/Facebook/whatev account.
- gcp 13y ago
  You can have your employer use Google services and consequently require you to create a Google account.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    You mean google apps? They give you one as part of it.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    What's to stop you from creating a Google account specifically for that purpose? Worked for me.
    - normloman 13y ago
      Yeah just make a Google+ account for work. And when Google asks for your real name, and nobody at works knows you're transgender, what do you do? Put in your legal name that's still set to your old gender? Put in your new name that Google rejects because it doesn't match the name on your phone bill / credit card / whatever. Put in a fake name and wait until your account gets deleted?

rmc 13y ago

Some LGBT rights organisations rank companies by how LGB and/or T friendly the organisation is to companies. Large tech companies often come out quite good. These rankings should start including factors that affect the customers of the company, which means Google would start losing rankings due to actions like this.

sentenza 13y ago
The rights organizations should award negative prizes to the worst-behaving companies and organizations, bundled at a well-publicizable awards event. This generates bad press on those companies, which in turn might do some good. I see some candidates for such awards right there in the article.

tomp 13y ago

> And, seems to me, we still have this (white) male dominated journalism elite, with their myopic, pseudo-macho ideas of what truth and the pursuit of it means. What a nice way to plug in some generalizing, offensive, misandric comments.

tone 13y ago
Yeah things like that are a good way to immediately discredit any other content you had, regardless of its legitimacy. I also read the word "triggering". A term I can never seem to figure out in it's context. It seems some people believe they (at least ought to) exist in some Utopian society where everyone should know what may upset everyone else (even in the slightest way) and endeavour to avoid at all costs. I mean it's maybe a nice concept on the whole, but the over intricate levels these people take it to are ridiculous. The whole article smacks of entitlement. Simplifying a name, or even a gender is not a personal attack or an attempt at discrimination, it's just in truth a simple system. If you use ten names and five genders, then why the hell should things like this cater to you? Not specifically to ignore you, but if everyone has these over indulgent massively personal requirements then all cannot be fulfilled. I'm sure there are people in the same situation that haven't had this problem, so how it isn't user error is beyond me. It's a free service...
- tomp 13y ago
  I, on the other hand, agree with the article, apart from the quote above. More of my reasons here: [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7108133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7108133
- normloman 13y ago
  We can't walk on eggshells all day because anything we say could trigger someone's traumatic memory. But use some common sense. If you're gonna talk about rape, murder, suicide, and your audience may not expect it, ... maybe give people a warning. Also - entitlement schmitlement. Expecting a company to handle your personal information discretely is a reasonable expectation. When Google acted recklessly with peoples private information, they violated their users trust.

Mikeb85 13y ago

The Google bashing is getting old. This is yet more evidence that you should be aware of how one service will use the information you give it, and that you should be careful with what information you enter on the internet, no matter what...

chilldream 13y ago
Yeah, you really should have considered what Google would put on their social network when you signed up for an email account a decade ago before "social network" was even a thing.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  What a baseless statement. Gmail started April 2004. Facebook started February 2004. At which time Myspace was a year old. Let's not be disingenuous and throw around nonsensical claims like "when you signed up for an email account a decade before "social network" was even a thing"...
  - chilldream 13y ago
    -You're parsing that sentence wrong; note the word "ago". -"social network" is in quotes because while the social networks themselves have been around for awhile, they only became a buzzword and the kind of thing Google would try to clumsily emulate in recent years.
dhimes 13y ago
I agree with your second sentence, not your first. I think that the only way people, even smart people, are going to comprehend what the hell is going on is by these 'bashing' sessions. Most people will see the headline and say, "Well, I'm ok with the service. Not a problem I can anticipate." It's only when more imaginative, knowledgeable people, who are also able prognosticate and clearly articulate the possible consequences, have this dialog that there is a chance it will catch peoples' attention. Even then, the odds are long and grim, but the discussion is necessary. Otherwise, most people just don't get it. Many people on this thread are saying things to the effect of "I lost all trust in Google." I honestly wonder how people could ever fully "trust" them, in the sense that they are not going to look out for their own bottom line- or, more accurately, look out for things that will increase the value of their stock. And that usually means opening up new revenue streams. And for them, that means more ways to get advertisers interested in advertising with them. And that means, of course, giving them more access to their dear users. It's the same with any public company, but especially high-profile ones who are likely to attract 'active' investors. Since companies don't usually pay dividends on their stocks anymore, the only way the piece of paper that I paid upwards of $1200 for is to convince some idiot to give me $1300 for it. Otherwise, I want someone to be fired because they've cost me a lot of money.

hartator 13y ago

Vic Gundotra. Please, get this guy fired. G+ is the biggest failure of Google. It has destroyed gmail chat with hangouts. Youtube with stupid G+ comment integration. It's slow, privacy unfriendly (to say the least, this present article is sadly crazy!), technically weak and socially awkward. They even fuck up the search, even the search!, with a strong bias on G+ "likes" and G+ authorship. The Internet needs blood... now.

myko 13y ago
> It has destroyed gmail chat with hangouts. Youtube with stupid G+ comment integration. These are pretty much huge improvements over the previous implementations though? >They even fuck up the search, even the search! I've personally found this useful on many occasions. True, I wish they could integrate with Twitter like they did before, but that's going to take coordination with Twitter. What would you improve regarding search/G+?

Nanzikambe 13y ago

I think many posters here are missing the real problem here, Google is taking liberties with (y)our personal data. Hiding behind the excuse that you could opt out, or that informational leakage is a user problem is disingenuous and can be illustrated by the simple analogy to a telephone directory: If your telephone directory suddenly arbitrarily decided to indicate beside a listing (a listing you may not have requested) your sexual orientation, gender, criminal history or political affiliation. Would that be ok? I think the answer is a clear and resounding "no!", and the underlying issue one that Google must address immediately and definitively. I've been migrating away from Google for the past six months or so, but this has now pushed that to the top of my priorities. So much for "do no evil"

omegaworks 13y ago

Does anyone know of any guidelines for creating software that is trans-inclusive?

antidaily 13y ago

I though the Grantland writer outed her to an investor. Sure, Google aided in that, but that was the whole issue.

fuckpig 13y ago

I was very much into this article until the end, when they started blaming white males for all their problems.

abvdasker 13y ago

While it's obviously very unfortunate that all this happened, this is not the full story. The words, "Hannan told her he was going to break the agreement not to write about her personal life and reveal her transgender status without her consent," are a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. Also, it's a lot of misdirected anger. The reporter's job is to get the story — and in this case Hannan's editors admit they pushed him to do so. http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-the-editor/ http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-t...

__pThrow 13y ago
It's hard to defend grantland after they wrote a 2900 word apology, but Dr. V + wasn't a doctor + claimed her putter worked on "magical" physics but it didn't + claimed she was an MIT professor who invented bluetooth and worked on the B2 and had top secret classifications + claimed she was a Vanderbilt + claimed because she was a Vanderbilt she has special relationships with Hilton + claimed her special relationships with Hilton could be used to get access to Hilton golf courses and Hilton customers And had at least one investor who said he lost $60,000 of his money I think this amounts to fraud. I think that changes the story from "marvelous putter" to con artists defrauding investors and consumers. I think that when you commit crimes and especially the crime of fraud it becomes very germane what your history is because you may have defrauded other people in the past. I think no matter who you are if you have a secret you don't want out the best advice is not to commit crimes. I don't know where in the priority for the local DA or the SEC defrauding an investor of $60,000 is, but it seems to have been ignored by everyone eager to take offense at how this article was written.

Pxtl 13y ago

I'd like to think that Google Plus/Hangouts/etc will go down as one of the biggest bungles social networking, but thankfully we have things like Digg and MySpace to point to for worse. If any start-up or other smaller business had screwed up this badly, they would be bankrupt. Google survives this only because it's not their main revenue source. I used to be a big Google fanboy, and I still buy Android stuff because it's the biggest OSS platform in its space. But Google has fallen. Not because they're spying on us, not because they're "evil" or something, but because they suck at the big moves. They're scatterbrained and clumsy and they screw up incessantly. And then defend the obviously-bad decisions as "user error" when their platform is obviously inscrutable for users. I just set up my wife with a fresh android phone and the process was miserable. There were days of it asking her to register for Plus ("I thought I already had a Plus account") or install some Maps support gadget ("I thought I already had Maps") and tedious errors. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good user experience. Google never planned to "out" this woman. That's the thing to remember. Google never sat down and said "we want to expose every transperson". They just screwed up. Because they suck. They ask repeatedly permission for dumb things that don't need permission, and then they wander over and make clumsy, grotesque changes without considering the consequences. The whole "Social Layer" thing was a great idea, really. Google needed a Disqus-like platform to integrate across all their services. But they completely dropped the ball on implementation. It's too opinionated about things it shouldn't be. If you're running a single site, you can be opinionated and say "Real Names Please". If you're running a framework you need to let the users and page-owners set the agenda.

pstack 13y ago

I think everyone on the internet should be forced to use their real identity, except for me, because I have a completely legitimate reason for wanting privacy and anonymity!

stesch 13y ago

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7012832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7012832 The original link was filtered/blocked on Hacker News. 19 days ago. :-(