I originally wrote this as a guest post for TechCrunch, but based on some good comments, I have modified the proposal. So here is my improved version of that post...
The debate on pseudonyms persists today in the NY Times, as Google continues to eject pseudonymous accounts from Google Plus. Google crafted its Common Names Policy in order to promote trust and transparency, hoping to mitigate spam and flame wars. But the backlash has been strong from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (in this eloquent statement) and others as they advocate for those who need pseudonyms to express themselves without fear of being ostracized, fired, arrested or physically targeted.
Google has promised to review its policy and develop new ways of addressing these concerns. Until then, Google Plus remains irrelevant not only to Arab Spring revolutionaries but to anyone whose life is not completely an open book. Google's policy stifles gay teens, victims of workplace harassment, medical patients seeking information and compassion, and any others who challenge the politics or religion around them.
However, the debate need not dwell on the relative importances of transparency and free expression. We must have both, and I believe we can. If Google seizes the opportunity to get this right, it will further distinguish Google Plus from Facebook as the safe, intelligent platform for sharing.
So Brad and Vic, if you're listening, please consider that you can enable free and transparent expression on the Internet by establishing Google as the source of authenticity for all profile names. I shouldn't pretend that I have thought through all the product ramifications, but roughly speaking here's what I would suggest you do...
Classify each profile name as either: Private for self-proclaimed pseudonyms; Unverified, for new profiles with allegedly "real" names; People Verified for those profiles that reach a certain degree of social activity without any indications of fraud or other reputational issues; Bank Verified for those profiles linked to an active credit card in that same name; and Google Verified for those "celebrity" profiles for whom Google vouches through their manual authentication procedures, as Twitter does.
Once Google does that, I can decide how to interact with Google Plus profiles of varying verification. Furthermore, if you allowed other web sites to also discriminate based on type of profile name, I expect that "Google Verified" would quickly leapfrog Facebook Connect and Twitter 0Auth as the preferred Login replacement.
For example, any community that reaches out to the disenfranchised can be liberal in their policy of expression, while others can exclude, or at least moderate, content from Private and Unverified users. Any statement or request from a Private profile can be considered in light of the person's anonymity. Commercial standards would develop around escalated levels of authentication; for example, commerce sites and banks might accept only Bank Verified logins.
Having cracked the code on how to share intelligently among my different Circles, Google Plus is the perfect platform for bridging transparency and free expression. Let me craft a different profile for each Circle, so I can use my Bank Verified profile at work, and my Private profile as I publicly criticize scary fundamentalists.
There is nothing dishonest about a pseudonym, so long as it's presented as one. Rather than fight anonymity, Google should simply help us recognize it - not only on Google Plus, but across the web.
If the purpose of Google's "real name" policy is what they say it is (which it isn't, as has been discovered, but let's pretend), your solution should satisfy them. This way they can have their little "identity service" as an OPTION for G+ users. Those who would rather not play can choose another flavor or simply ignore this mostly invented anonymity crisis and continue as before.
ReplyDeleteAt long last some sanity and really excellent thinking in this "debate"!
ReplyDeleteOne reason that I almost never comment on threads to do with identity and privacy (or much else) is due to the mass of ill-informed, paranoid, angry and abusive anonymous posts that pass for true debate. I would love to have an intelligent discussion with people who are not afraid to identify themselves - but without G+ as it is now, or even better the G++ that you propose, that option is denied to me. I would really love to be able to filter out comments from anonymous people (who don't interest me) - but I can't!
Until I can get access to G+, I will have to content myself with having proper intelligent open discussions with a much more limited group of properly identified professionals via email and other serious fora like Linkedin, etc.
Anonymity is of course a necessary option for communication in some frequently quoted circumstances - however most of us are fortunate enough not to live in an environment like the ones that led to the Arab Spring! Luckily, there are plenty of totally anonymous platforms that can be used for people who really need to.
I don't see the harm in what has been said by Google in this regard - if you want to indulge in anonymous angry shouting matches there are already plenty of places where you can do that. Why would Google want to be just another one of those?
I agree and disagree, I think the right to have your name anything you would like, has no effect on your debating skills. My main concern when using false names to get your message across is that you can't tell the 'person' directly where to shove it, after you verbally beat him/her into a pulp with your disposition. What I have heard and read about Google+ is that Google is trying to combine the marketing aspects of twitter with the social aspects of Facebook. With anonymous accounts you can't establish genuine credibility, with a product or service. However, if you need to play games, you always can give your opinion in a discreet way on internet boards. The real losers are the people that try to brand themselves with the identities of past/present celebrities. However, I firmly believe, if you can't establish yourself in your own shoes, and name, then you have an issue with your own self-worth and identity.
ReplyDeletePlus, as the URL dictates 'WWW' is world-wide and like everything in the world, you have to filter out the good from the bad, and the right from the wrong.
It might be valuable for this authentication to be a service independent from Google with a marketplace of authentication service providers. It seems this is largely in place already with google being one of the service providers. Besides, google knows so much about me they could guess my real name if they wanted to.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely support a self-declared Pseudonym flag.
ReplyDeleteThe name under which I am posting this is a pseudonym. I have been consistently posting as this pseudonym and this pseudonym alone in a variety of fora since early 2007. I think that all those who have been agitating against Google policy would also support this. They/we are not attempting to deceive. They/we either do not believe that the universe at large - or even Google - needs to know our meatspace identity and/or we are in real danger if we broadcast that information for random_strangers/identity_thieves/stalkers to trawl.
The proposal is unclear in some respects.
"Declared Pseudonym" is simple and very straightforward.
"People Verified" might or might not be intended to include declared pseudonyms "that reach a certain degree of social activity without any indications of fraud or other reputational issues". It should, of course. Anyone who declares a pseudonym is actually more trustworthy than someone who does not, but provides no actual proof that the name is 'real'.
Bad actors are not going to self-declare as pseudonyms.
At their most casual, and in great numbers, they will be "Unverified". They will be completely indistinguishable from those who are using their 'real' wallet names but who do not opt to verify that either by bank or verification process.
If they wish to have a higher status in order to execute some social engineering on those who block "Unverified" they will either
1) "Bank Verify" with stolen credit card information. This can be bought online. It is a booming business. Google for "buy stolen credit card details"
2) "Google Verify" using the manual authentication procedures. Yes – Google will accept even blatantly forged ID. (see link below)
Would you like to view my Photoshopped driver licence? Do you know what a genuine Kurdistani licence looks like?
Do you know what a Hawaiian licence looks like? Google don’t - apparently. If they did, then the guy in this blog posting would simply Photoshop one better than the one that Google accepted.
http://gewalker.blogspot.com/2011/08/firsthand-examination-of-google-profile.html
Read that and weep :)
Does anyone actually suffer from the delusion that Google can verify photocopies of ID for hundreds of millions of people from countries all over the planet? Come along now. Do try to keep up with reality.
The only real way to identify a bad actor is by observing their behaviour. The observation can be personal or can be by a system detecting a pattern of actions.
The only real way of determining that a person has opinions that you can not abide it to see them expressing such opinions.
The label is of no help in this. John Smith (Google Verified / Bank Verified) could be the worst thing that ever happened to you. Biker123 could be the best.
I should also suggest extending your categories to allow people like Mike Pluke (above ) to self-declare as that mind-set. This would be a useful indicator to others who might suffer great annoyance or indigestion at being exposed to them.
"ill-informed, paranoid, angry and abusive anonymous posts that pass for true debate. I would love to have an intelligent discussion with people who are not afraid to identify themselves" = extreme irony
That mindset is intolerant and abusive towards the following sorts of quite decent people.
http://my.nameis.me/
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F
"Google's policy stifles gay teens, victims of workplace harassment, medical patients seeking information and compassion, and any others who challenge the politics or religion around them."
ReplyDeleteYes, but also be mindful that pseudonymity is something that the average everyday person wants for a myriad of non-fraudulent, non-trollish reasons.
Pseudonymity is needed when from protecting one's home from burglary while posting live updates at an event such as a conference or festival (google "please rob me" for web app and new articles).
Pseudonymity is about keeping our hobbies and our political/religious beliefs, no matter how mainstream, separate from our professional brand name, which is a smart practice for everyone and a required (or heavily recommended practice for many professionals such as government employees, government contractors, teachers, and professors.
The important point is that pseudonymity isn't just about protecting people from discrimination when they are in obviously vulnerable situations, but protecting all of us from anyone who harvest public data for questionable or downright nefarious activities.
Pseudonymity is about choosing whether or not we want to wear a picture of our government issued ID on our electronic shirts while using social networks. It's about replicating the everyday privacy that we already enjoy in the meat-space of the real world.
The list of people helped by pseudonymity covers the vast majority of society:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F
For example, any community that reaches out to the disenfranchised can be liberal in their policy of expression, while others can exclude, or at least moderate, content from Private and Unverified users. Any statement or request from a Private profile can be considered in light of the person's anonymity. Commercial standards would develop around escalated levels of authentication; for example, commerce sites and banks might accept only Bank Verified logins."
The problem with this idea is that it is MORE than just the disenfranchised who desire to express themselves on the web. If a newspaper, for instance, suddenly has a single bad experience with Private or Unverified profiles, what is to stop them from having a knee-jerk response that bans people who don't have People Verified or Bank Verified names? This will silence many people, not just the obviously disenfranchised groups. This can start a very bad precedent until challenged by law.
My problem with all of the anti-pseudonym talk is that the proponents of (so called) Real Name policies are tossing out the baby with the bathwater. Everyone everyone everyone has legitimate non-fraudulent reasons for using nicknames and pseudonym online.
Creating tiers of verification is problematic and runs the risk of charging people of being guilty of a pseudonym until they can prove themselves innocent.
The problem with Google Plus and privacy is that Google Plus leverages existing user data in its other products like Gmail, Places and so on. In this case, the boundaries between accounts are blurred. Google Plus considers this its edge over Facebook and Twitter, but it has also become the biggest point of contention for the social networking site.
ReplyDeleteGoogle plus at this stage is confusing with no real benefit. I hope that just because a website doesn't recieve +1 love that they get penalized.
ReplyDeleteGoogle really needs an end game and some cool features far above circles.