Anonymity and Privacy disappearing in all Google products!

Many of you have already heard about the anonymity and pseudonym crisis going on with the new Google+ social network service.  Googler’s had solace in the fact that at least they could create GMail accounts with anonymity.

NOT SO ANYMORE!

Check out these screen shots for creating a new GMail account.  It used to be that the First Name and Last Name fields were NOT required.  Now they’re required and this happened only in the last week or two.

image

Not only do you have to enter a first and last name, but now you have to give them your phone number too!  This removes just about any possibility of plausible deniability if you’re a whistle blower for a big company, a political dissident, etc…

image

image

This is starting to get out of hand.  It’s been stated numerous times all the legitimate reasons people (normal, every day people) need anonymity, not to even mention the life saving reasons people in oppressed countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, etc… need to protect their identities while still being able to communicate with the outside world.  Whistleblowers, battered wives, abused children, even people with minor to major celebrity status, people with a JOB that’d like to express their political opinions without being punished by their supervisors or bosses who may happen to disagree or to avoid receiving ridicule from their coworkers.  The list goes on and on.

Detractors in favor of the real names policy have been saying (Including Eric Schmidt himself), if you need anonymity, then Google+ is not the service for you.  He said that in response to a question someone threw at him in an recent open Q&A.;  Part of the response was that Google+ was first created as an identity service.

Well, that may have been (“have been” being the key phrase there… PAST TENSE).  It’s NOT that today.  Today, it’s a social network that competes head on with Facebook.  The Google+ social service can easily be separated from the “profile” service… THAT’S the service where the real names identity is enforced.  In fact, they already ARE separate entities (Google+ and the profile).  This is because you have a Google account (which lets you access all your Google services like GMail, docs, picasa, YouTube, Google+, Google Voice, etc…).  The profile is an addendum to your Google Account.  Your profile can be “suspended” without you losing access to your Google Services like GMail, docs, etc…  There’s absolutely no reason why Google+ can’t be (or isn’t already) just another Google service.

If Google wants an identity service, then, by all means, make one, if the profile service isn’t already that service (and I declare that it IS).  But let the battered wives, the political dissidents, the job hunters, the sexual crime victims, the people with embarrassing health issues, et. al. have the ability to interact with the outside world without having to reveal their real names!  Let them maintain their privacy!

Here’s a list of arguments FOR the real names policy and why those arguments are wrong:

  • If you don’t want to use your real name, don’t use G+.
    • That is, of course, an option, but If Google achieves what they want with G+ (to defeat Facebook), then where is one to go if all your community is on G+?  It’s been demonstrated time and again that only 1 social network can exist as everyone moves to where their friends are.  Remember MySpace? and that other one I can’t even recall the name of that was once “THE social network”?  When a large (VERY LARGE) company, such as Google, becomes a centralized service that hundreds of millions of people depend on, their moral responsibility shifts.  They have a social responsibility too.  Google admits as such with their motto, “Do no evil”.  Well, how is telling a 12 year old incest rape victim that she either has to reveal her real name or go somewhere else NOT evil?
  • Or just simply change your last name to Smith or something. (stated by the same person that made the above remark).
    • If you support the real names policy, then you can’t support this activity.  And if you think this is a solution (which, obviously, people will certainly do), then what’s the point of the real names policy if it can so easily be defeated?
  • He’s got a point (referring to Schmidt’s response). Nobody’s forcing you to use G+. If you don’t like the policy, there are plenty other social contact services (Facebook, MySpace, Yahoo! Pulse, LinkedIn) that you’re welcome to go to.
    • See my response to the first bullet.  Besides… “Yahoo! Pulse”?  Who’s ever heard of that?
  • Exactly, in much the same way as you will never please everyone. If they allowed pseudonyms then there would be just as many people that were unhappy about that.
    • I seriously doubt it.  Here’s why:  On G+, you choose who you follow.  So what if there’s a “Darth Vadar” user?  If you don’t want to follow that person, then simply DON’T.  Nobody’s forcing you to and I doubt you’d even know that person even existed on G+.  You know the people you want to follow.  Just do it.  And don’t follow the people you DON’T want to.  It really is that simple.
  • The problem with pseudonyms is that we’d run into the Facebook problem. 750m names spread over half that number of people.
    • Refer to the pro real names comment above stating “Or just simply change your last name to Smith or something”.  Also, Facebook also has a real names policy, so you’ll get the same effect on G+.
  • In this case I agree with Eric Schmidt. Use your real name and identity and take responsibility for what you write.
    • Really?  So a battered wife should have to reveal her REAL NAME online when seeking support?  A 12 year old rape victim (raped by a family member) should have to reveal her REAL NAME online when seeking support and help?  A drug addict who’s seeking help should have to reveal their REAL NAME so their employer can find out?  An Iranian, Afghan, or Chinese civilian should have to reveal their real name when they’re reporting on atrocities by their own government?  Pardon my French, and I’ve NEVER used this language in ANY of my posts until now (look at them going back many years), but HOW F%$#@!NG STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO MAKE THAT KIND OF A STATEMENT?!?!?!?!?
  • Aside from a few name glitches, what is the big deal here?
    • See my response just above.

One Reply to “Anonymity and Privacy disappearing in all Google products!”

  1. You make some good points here. I'm on the fence though and can see both sides.

    I do think there is a place for real names and place for anonymity.

    It would be a shame if anonymity disappeared everywhere on the web.

Leave a Reply