Verified IDs Old News

The National Identity Workshop - these folks:
... have been presented as context for g+ names policy re: #nymwars et al.

People who want to see the problems with the underlying concept need look no further than the long-running national ID card debates...

eg.Bruce Schneier:

Real ID: Costs and Benifits (2007)

A National ID Card Wouldn't Make Us Safer(2004!)

... this is not new and the issues are well known.

EPIC overview(2007)

This is just in the USA! It seems this is a debate that just keeps going round and round - only the context changes.

Not so say that ID cards are not useful. They are. It's just that a universal, ubiquitous ID system cannot make us more secure. Even if it was perfect. People and organisations implementing any kind of ID verification need to be very clear about what it can and cannot do.

ID verification of some users seems like it would be useful for g+ ... and some people would use it. Enforced for everyone? The harm outweigs the good. Besides - google stands to gain more by allowing a graduated verification system.

More Nymwars

The debate over real names in google+ continues. It's been going on long enough now for some actual information to emerge.

Tod Vierling has been collecting stats on the whole shebang. His results are updated fairly often, and if you think he's missed something, there is even a submission form. So far the overwhelming number of unique commentators are in favor of allowing pseudonyms in google+ and the majority of those use their real names themselves - thus: googles targeted audience would prefer a network where pseudonyms are allowed.

Eric Schmidt, (Google Exec. Chair.) has been recorded pointing out that;

G+ was built primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information

... and anyone who doesn't like that should get out.

This pretty much echos what I've been saying all allong: google does not want robust discussion or political activism on their network. They want a sort of boardroom etiquette, the sort of polite conversation you get at political fundraisers.

It gets worse: if you are a teenager wanting to avoid bullying (or pedophiles), or a woman who is not OK about sexual harassment online, they don't want you either. (Though they probably hope that the real names policy will discourage this behavior there is no evidence that it can.) Chris Bridges has a good summary

Basically this is the foot-gun approach to marketing. By denying pseudonyms, google are throwing away information (when people choose their own name, the name they choose tells you something about the person), and restricting the marketplace available to their customers (advertisers).

However, these revelations suggest a way forward: I submit that an identity verification scheme is a great addition to a social network. Eric is right when he says there are good uses for this and people who will want it and benefit from it. It is just should not be the basis for the network.

In addition to previous suggestions: allow people to use a pseudonym for their profile name, different pseudonyms for different circles, and keep a private "real name" between themselves and google, I'd suggest simply tagging profiles with a verification rating (those who are well behaved - the bad people get banned normally) something like:

1. not reviewed: we have not checked this profile, so cannot say anything about it
2. under review: looking into it (see below
3. unconfirmed: profiles where the person is well behaved but we have not received satisfactory paperwork
4. confirmed: pseudonymous profile, there is a real person behind it
5. verified: this is a real person and, yes, this is their real name

• may want to be able to mark profiles as removed or banned (keep their comments, or replace removed comments with some placeholder, so evidence remains to remind people and serve as a bad example).
• allows for possible additional ratings such as google partner (gave us money) for commercial profiles.

Further: when a profile comes under review, it is handled like a bug report - a link to a review page, from the profile, which has a description of the problem and an opportunity for feedback. This will allow the development of some sort of due process without constitutionalizing the network.

I maintain that the above satisfied just about everyone's concerns and makes google+ a head-and-shoulders improvement on the other social networking offerings out there.

Pseudonyms update

+Bradley Horowitz talks about the whole pseudonym thing.
Still can't get past the thing that Google does not want google+ to be the sort of place where people are anonymous or known by silly names. Like it detracts from the tone of the place I guess.

I can see how having people called "God" about can do that. However, not all pseudonyms are silly. Obvious pseudonyms are better (more honest) than plausible ones - which is what the policy basically asks for.

By restricting to real names, Google+ could never become a force for social and political change as we have seen with facebook for fear that some extremest opponent may track you down. Could never become a place for robust mature conversation. Just the sort of polite non-discussions you get at office parties or political fundraisers. Is that really the idea?

I maintain that the no-fake-names policy will keep good people away while doing nothing to discourage the bad ones.

Since other fields can be used to store and display aliases - why not do it the other way around: allow the profile name to be anything non-silly, and put the real names in other fields?

This could even be expanded to allow different identities in different circles - eg. someone could be Benny to family, Benjamin to "business colleagues", and Mr Hill to "current students". (And Honey-buns to lovers.)


Wouldn't you love this?

"Pseudonyms Forbidden" Google+

Privacy is about control - control over information. For the most part, Google+ hands control to the user - the person the information is about. The privacy settings are conservative by default, and the principle information flow tool, the circles, helps you keep your different online and private selves separate.

However, Google wants to control the means by which you control your information.

In social media, you would normally use a range of online identities across several accounts to control your information. At least, the net-savvy do this. How many of us have an email account to use when registering for services .. to catch the spam? We control information flow, in part, by our pseudonyms. Of course, criminals hide behind pseudonyms and people with an axe to grind can create a fake facebook (say) account in your name as a way to smear your name. Also, using a pseudonym yourself can make it difficult for people who know you in one social group to find you in another... that's your trade-off.

In this environment, Google+, by policy, does not allow pseudonyms (handles, avatar names, nicks, whatever) as the main identity of the account. As you can imagine, this is the cause of some concern. There is even a petition.

There are lots of legitimate reasons someone may want to use a fake name for their account. The various articles and blog posts on this topic list them. The whole concept of pseudonymity is complex, here's an academic overview of the issues and concerns (as opposed to a bunch of bloggers with their backs up).

Using an obviously fake name is all that is being banned, in practice. If you really really need a fake name, make one up that sounds plausible. An obvious fake name advertises it's fakeness and so is more honest, so this policy discourages honesty. Note, user +John Smith will probably want to be more easily separated from all the other John Smith's out there: so a  fake name can help people find you.

Without repeating the details from other blogs (above), it looks to me that the concerns of the users and those of Google can be addressed quite simply:

• Allow pseudonyms in the profile name.
• Encourage users to add their real name (however defined) under also known as.

This way, users can control which of their circles can see that part of their identity: adding to their control rather than removing from it.

Why not do this? Well I can only think of one reason: Google wants to know who you are. This is not about crime, spam, or finding people; this is about control.