Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

jwz.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 175 posts

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#91

Post by nirvana »

thwest wrote: post #24
nirvana wrote: post #8

I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google. Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be? Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them.…

What are the best alternatives for email?

I started out looking for dedicated email services. But in the end I found that regular old shared hosting accounts provide email.

Also, be advised that Iceland has implemented strong privacy policies, and that might be a good jurisdiction to host your email.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#92

Post by jdietrich »

Hypothesis: Google data indicates that pseudonymous users make a net-negative contribution to the quality of an online community (c.f. The WELL). They want a real name not for any commercial reason, but to hold users accountable for their behaviour. Google's real names policy for G+ isn't part of some complex conspiracy, but in fact standard Google practice - following the data, even when the data contradicts what users say they want.

Is it evil to put the interests of the entire network above the interests of a small minority? If you can say for sure, you're either an ideologue or you've solved the most fundamental problem of politics.

Personally, I think there's room on the spectrum for a variety of standards of identity. At one end there's 4chan, at the other carefully-vetted private communities. In the middle you've got sites that require a "real" e-mail address, or Something Awful charging $10 to join. Google's real names policy is distinctly flawed in execution, I think largely as a result of scale, but I don't think it's a fundamentally bad idea and certainly not categorically evil.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#93

Post by epistasis »

fpgeek wrote: post #48
blahedo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > meaning they're still fully prepared to roll over on you > I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. They should be prepared to flout the law? Why would you draw that inference? JWZ seems to be presuming the opposite, i.e. that Google plans to comply with the law---and since they will have carefully collected legal names to go with every account, they can be maximally helpful to the authoritarian governments who…

The idea that Google having your Real Name via Google+ helps them be helpful to governments (authoritarian or otherwise) is... odd. If a government wants to tie a Google account to a Real Name, they have plenty of options: - get a history of IP addresses that accessed the account and contact the relevant ISPs - track other Google accounts logged into from a similar pattern of IP addresses and see if there's a Real Na…

All of those methods are very easily avoidable by somebody who wants to remain anonymous. And Google complying with a subpeona or National Security Letter is certainly not odd, and should be expected since Google is law-abiding.

If you have not heard of National Security Letters,

>between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03...

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#94

Post by mapgrep »

jdietrich wrote: post #92

Hypothesis: Google data indicates that pseudonymous users make a net-negative contribution to the quality of an online community (c.f. The WELL). They want a real name not for any commercial reason, but to hold users accountable for their behaviour. Google's real names policy for G+ isn't part of some complex conspiracy, but in fact standard Google practice - following the data, even when the data contradicts what us…

No need to hypothesize, Google has spoken on this. Chairman Eric Schmidt:

"If we knew that it was a real person, then we could sort of hold them accountable, we could check them, we could give them things, we could you know bill them, you know we could have credit cards and so forth."

http://gigaom.com/2011/08/29/its-official-google-wants-to-ow...

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#95

Post by ethank »

jdietrich wrote: post #92

Hypothesis: Google data indicates that pseudonymous users make a net-negative contribution to the quality of an online community (c.f. The WELL). They want a real name not for any commercial reason, but to hold users accountable for their behaviour. Google's real names policy for G+ isn't part of some complex conspiracy, but in fact standard Google practice - following the data, even when the data contradicts what us…

I think the biggest problem for me is the assumption that there needs to exist a mapping between First/Last name and identity. Its the abutment of two constructs made arbitrary by the media (names and physical self), with the assumption that what emerges is more "real" and thus more consequential to the agent driving it.

It's complete bullshit and flies in the face of history, not just what is "right."

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#96

Post by forcefsck »

jdietrich wrote: post #92

Hypothesis: Google data indicates that pseudonymous users make a net-negative contribution to the quality of an online community (c.f. The WELL). They want a real name not for any commercial reason, but to hold users accountable for their behaviour. Google's real names policy for G+ isn't part of some complex conspiracy, but in fact standard Google practice - following the data, even when the data contradicts what us…

Anonymity as "Anonymous Coward", someone on the internets with zero credibility said you were a bad student. Thanks to google super search powers, I know who you are, I'd certainly never hire you.

Anonimity as "Certain Nickname on g+". Nobody knows his real name, but everybody knows his avatar and nickname and his real religious/political views. He has a certain credibility based on past facts. When I find hin irl, I'll kick his ass for insulting my believes.

No anonimity, as we "know exactly who he is". He always posts about mainstream music and funny catz. He is a joy, always contributing positively in our community.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#97

Post by luckydude »

I was the 4th guy at Google and back then they were not evil (duh).

I left to do my own thing but I email Larry and Sergey from time to time and so far they have been pretty cool about listening to me (they have a 747 or whatever it is, I have a Dodge Sprinter, sort of establishes the pecking order, I'm way way down on the list, so the fact that they sometimes listen is cool)

I think that Google wants to not be evil but the whole money thing kinda messes that up.

I also think that they listen. If you want Google to not be evil, it's a lot like wanting our government to not be evil. If you sit back and complain when they get evil, oh, well, that's what you might expect. If you apply pressure that says "hey! don't be evil, we liked that part!" you might be pleasantly surprised.

It's passive or not. If you are passive and unhappy with the results, try being more noisy, I think there are a lot of people that want to do the right thing but if the only noise they hear is from money people who want more money, well, they take care of those people. Make some noise.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#98

Post by haberman »

nirvana wrote: post #8

I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google. Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be? Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them.…

> But requiring a real name, tells me that google doesn't just want to track me to advertise to me. They want to correlate my online activities with my offline identity.

Do you then conclude the same thing about Facebook, which has had a "real names" policy since basically forever?

"Facebook has always been based on a real-name culture. We think this leads to greater accountability and a safer and more trusted environment for our users." --Facebook spokesman Simon Axten, 2009

Is it possible that Google's social networking platform is following this principle for the same reason, and not because of some dastardly plan to build a dossier about you?

I still don't understand why Facebook gets a pass on this issue, when they have had a "real names" policy for much longer.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#99

Post by magicalist »

nirvana wrote: post #8

I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google. Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be? Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them.…

This is seriously silly.

I agree with the other poster that I normally see sane things written by you, so I don't totally understand where this is coming from. Moreover, why is this being held to the top of this comment section? (I guess the subject brings in people that agree) To respond:

First, it doesn't follow at all that the only reason to include a real name is to correlate online activity with your real life person. For instance, the reasoning could be exactly what they are saying it is.

Now, there's no reason to trust corporations (large or small, startups certainly aren't white knights in this area), but that does not preclude that as a possible answer.

Second, do you honestly think, after keeping your email account with google for (presumably) 7 years and doing every single web search through them for 11 years that they need some "authoritative method" to figure out your identity?? I could see if you're starting an account today, but your conclusion here just makes no sense at all. You trusted a freaking privacy policy for all these years, but now that they offer pseudonyms for google+ accounts, the only possible conclusion is that they are now partners with the NSA to do....some unspecified evil?

I'm trying to stay civil here, but I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#100

Post by csmt »

nirvana wrote: post #8

I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google. Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be? Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them.…

I agree with you nirvana. I have been using Google search for 12 years and Gmail for 7 years. But recently Google has been trying to do each and everything.

Google+ tied with enormous Google adsense+display ads reach is scary. Google has recently started putting +1 button on their display ads. And may be soon they will put +1 button on text ads. And then any site you visit with Google ads, Google will know who you are.

More and more I am feeling Google's focus is ads not social, mobile, etc. Google+ and Android is just there to reach out and target ads better, which makes me sick :(

Post reply on HN