From a privacy point of view, Google was already perfectly able to connect the dots of what all its users did on its services long before Plus: single sign-on was perfectly sufficient to do that. Having plus doesn't make it any easier or more difficult. So, technically, Google could already have collected all those data and sold them to the advertisers before plus.
What I hope that Google will guarantee, related to G+, is a complete control over which of those dots can become public; if G+ is an identity service (whatever that might mean) I want to have control over what I show of my identity and to whom. Something where I'm willing to cut some more slack to Google than to Facebook, given their track records, but not so much more.
* Something where I'm willing to cut some more slack to Google than to Facebook, given their track records, but not so much more.*
I'm on the fence about that. So far I've given Google the benefit of the doubt. But it's quite plausible the evil bit will flip, so prudence tells me to start now weaning off Google services and diversify.
I was willing to cut Google slack than other companies. But they exhausted that slack supply when they cut-off their own ex-employees for using well-established pseudonyms.
The concept of an "identity server" is unacceptable for any idea of freedom. I might hate the US government but I do hypothetically have some democratic rights in exchange for the DMV being the current "identity server" in this region. For any private entity to say "you must give me your stuff and I hope to keep it secret" without me having any leverage over them is ... (excuse my repeating)... unacceptable.
The DMV database is not publicly searchable by the whole world. That's an important distinction.
Remember those dystopian visions of the future where microchips would be inserted under people's skin so they could be tracked? That future is here, no forced microchipping required. People are volunteering for it in droves as they buy smart phones (and use social networks).
I don't understand why people get so upset over things like National ID cards, and then turn right around and give all their private info to Google and Facebook.
You already have a national ID number. Several, actually. They are your cell phone number, your Facebook account number, and your Gmail address, among others.
I don't understand why people get so upset over things like National ID cards, and then turn right around and give all their private info to Google and Facebook.
I don't think those are the same people. The internet is a big place, after all...
Given the population sizes on Google and Facebook, and the sheer number of people in the UK who have been objecting the National ID card schemes, then a very significant portion of the latter's population is on social media.
You already have a national ID number. Several, actually. They are your cell phone number, your Facebook account number, and your Gmail address, among others
They are 'numbers' that identify someone, that's for sure. But there is still a big difference with national ID numbers, as you can request multiple, share them between people, delete them, etc... Even though loads of data are collected it still offers some freedom.
I don't think it's just google+. I noticed my gmail account logging me into youtube yesterday. I've avoided opening a google+ account so as to avoid that kind of thing from happening, I have remained logged out of my gmail account since.
I don't like this one bit. I was on Youtube and noticed I was logged in. Then when I logged out on a "Video Sharing Site", I was logged out of my "E-Mail Program" that was open in another tab too. I was scared for a second that a public Youtube profile had been made from my gmail-address, so people can view my last log-ins. I also looked, to no avail, at a way to disconnect my personal Gmail-account from Youtube.
I will miss the personalization. But for me this too will mean less browsing while logged into Google services. It is not the same scale like Spotify requiring a Facebook account, but it is close enough to make me cringe and worry about my favorite online services.
I don't like having multiple browser windows opened though. It just dawned on me that Gmail was the only reason I was not using private mode full time. Now my browser is in private mode from start up.
I've just moved to using Empathy and Evolution(ugh) to check mail. I'd be interested in getting a command line version of the two up.
I'd really like a way of setting up multiple persistent browser sandboxes in Firefox or Chrome, so I can have separate sets of logged-in accounts associated with each.
Browse Facebook and related sites in one window, Google products in another, and use a third for general web-browsing, all persistent across sessions, but without any sandbox knowing what's going on in any other.
It should just mean browsing Gmail in a 'Private Mode' Chrome/Firefox window.
That's a good idea, though still not quite frictionless enough for lazy people like me.
It's a bigger issue when I'm just browsing around and click a link that takes me to YouTube.
What's needed (as someone else here suggested, more or less) is an add-on smart enough to recognize a set of domains and always follow these links by creating a private mode window.
Scared the shit out of me as well and I absolutely hate it.
The sad thing is: There would be an easy solution to solve this trickery. Just giving Firefox a right click option. Not "open in new window", not "open in new tab" but "open in clean (aka cookie free) window".
With I had the coding skills to realize that. Or is there already something similar out?
I think the number of people that use private browsing/incognito mode for this purpose makes it obvious that something is needed. Mozilla and google talked a lot about various proposals around "identity" being managed in the browser rather than via websites starting about a year ago.
Mozilla's BrowserID focused more on a really good way of managing a single identity (per Firefox profile), whereas Chrome's MultiProfiles were focused on easily switching between multiple profiles with separate cookies, history, passwords, etc (whether that's for multiple people or a single person with multiple but separate needs online).
Multi-profiles seem good for your need...you can stay signed in with a persistent google cookie in one window (maybe just keeping gmail open), while doing all your regular surfing without the cookie in another window, under a different profile.
Both are still in development though. I don't see multi-profiles in about:flags in chrome, and some poking around shows you might need to run chrome with a command flag, which is a pain. Reviewers seem to like it, though.
edit: it's not a nice integrated browser function, but I guess you could get equivalent functionality by just running different Firefox instances with different profiles. I don't know if there are any problems with that approach, though.
I was a but creeped out when they automatically logged me in to youtube. After I found out there was no way to log out of youtube without logging out of Google Reader and Gmail, I am checking my RSS feeds and email a lot less. There should be an option to opt out, it's ridiculous.
Last time I checked, there was a way to unlink your Youtube account from the Google one, so it may worth a check, but no guarantees here as Google changed a lot on this front lately.
Just tried it, and you can indeed unlink the accounts. But you can't login with just a youtube account. You need a Google account.
Still useful to relink to a throwaway account instead of the main gmail account. But I'm not sure the multiple account will let you stay logged in correctly..
I keep thing separate by doing only Google things in Chrome and everything else in Firefox.
I will continue to shun Google+ because of the stories about people being shut out of it over the 'looks like a real name' rules because I have an Android phone and can't risk losing access to it.
You might want to try netvibes.com as an alternative to using Google for its RSS feature. It has some nice features, for example being able to Tweet an RSS headline directly out of the interface.
/not affiliated, just some hardcore user
i love the absolute shit of gmail, and im in this situation where i am willing to pay for it to not bother me to with g+ youtube.
I do not want to go back to thunderbird but gmail is creeping me more and more. The best part is i recommended it to all my friends and stood on googles side on more then one occasion.
Is there a space for a startup that will make a gmail alternative. There is toons of saas startups but none in this space.
Maybe I'll find some nice command line email client that I can get to work on different OSes/cross platform. That's the main head scratcher for now, it was too easy to forget just how well gmail as a web app works on any given system. Friends have offered me money to set up an email service for them, they'd trust me before google. It's not sufficient motivation for me. At least they know what they signed up for.
At the moment I don't mind using google's infrastructure, I have had an overhanging inclination to get away from their services since Buzz happened. Convenience prevailed! Even without the new auto signup/login, they already have my IP indexed usage stats which could be joined on my gmail logged in IP address/cookie, but to have it out in the open like this probably allows third parties to go looking for it. This new development is linking your real name with what you consume on youtube. I have no interest in giving up that info so easily.
I signed up at http://diasp.org for a Diaspora account a couple of weeks ago. It's noticeably not quite finished but it seems to work well enough. It now has enough of my friends on it that it's worth going there now and again. Diaspora often seems to attract bad vibes on HN but I'm hoping it'll take off.
I am certain the next step will be when they use Google+ "likes" (or whatever) to determine page rank. I, for one, find it troubling how much Google can dictate the success of a web based business.
I think its time to de-couple ourselves from providers like Google, facebook, twitter. I for one am not very comfortable in getting into a 1984 situation!
This is the next logical step. Most people are already performing social and stream worthy actions all over google properties, it makes sense for them to provide users with a public forum for their display.
Although I'm still not sure google has easy route to mass collection of the holy grail of social content: photos.
I started keeping separate browsers for my gmail,FB accounts and the rest of the web.
I signed up on Gmail to use the email, not for my identity management/profile for other things (say ad targeting). Google should let us choose disconnect our gmail, google+, youtube accounts.
Well, I can imagine google linking +1 with likes on Youtube, like/share/star On google reader, star on google groups and so on.
If so, it will also make google plus a lot more useful, as your interactions on Google+ already affect, in a positive way IMHO, your Google search results.
Google, from another view, is trying to standardize on one id(google+) across all it's systems. It makes their data mining results better hence better targeted ads. Wonder when they will announce that Buzz is dead
I'm a fan of G+. However, I wrote a post about this about three months ago (http://hubski.com/pub?id=2069), and I still feel the same way.
IMHO, this is not only going to change the nature of Google, but in the end, it will change their definition of innovation. -When every product is wrapped in social, it changes what every product can be.
My uncle's Google account was just shut down after they asked his age (for "personalization") and he filled in 1-1-2000, which is under 18. He had to send them a copy of his passport to reopen the account.
Blame the government, not Google. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) pretty much makes it impossible for Google to provide accounts to people under the age of 13 without opening themselves up to major liabilities. Your uncle lied and mistakingly made himself appear to be too young to provide an account to, Google had no choice but to originally take him at his word.
"Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point where you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create their log-in user ID. In designing a neutral age-screening mechanism, you might consider:
- Making sure the data entry point allows users to enter their age accurately. An example of a neutral age-screen would be a system that allows a user to freely enter month, day, and year of birth. A site that includes a drop-down menu that only permits users to enter birth years making them 13 or older, would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism since children cannot enter their correct age on that site.
- Not encouraging children to falsify their age information, for example, by stating that visitors under 13 cannot participate on your website or should ask their parents before participating. In addition, a site that does not ask for neutral date of birth information but rather simply includes a check box stating “I am over 12 years old” would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism.
- In addition, we recommend using a temporary or a permanent cookie to prevent children from back-buttoning to enter a different age."
How horrible. When asking an adult for proof of date-of-birth we clearly say "Because you can't come in and buy beer until you're 21". But kids don't get that respect.
There's no worse way to handle this. It teaches kids to lie and there's no reason a less-than-13yo shouldn't have access to email anyways. Yes, it is the law, but it's just wrong.
That's a terrible comparison. People have to show a government ID to buy alcohol, stating your age on a website is much less of a verification. Plus, there are few kids out there who haven't had the idea to lie about being 21--it's just much more difficult than giving a different birth date to a website.
> People have to show a government ID to buy alcohol, stating your age on a website is much less of a verification.
And yet it's worth enough that it's a law that you must attempt to trick the children.
> Plus, there are few kids out there who haven't had the idea to lie about being 21
Of course not. Because it's not a secret restriction. So anyone any everyone can dream of bypassing it. And it's easy - you can get a drunk to buy booze for you anywhere.
But instead of tricking people we still say it outright. We know some will be driven to crime but it's worth it that the law-abiding get to choose their path.
Lying makes the law just an annoying obstacle to be bypassed instead of a healthy warning and in doing so starts to erode any trust its victims might have had in a just and reasonable government.
Admittedly they do say "It is a myth your entire Google account will be suspended because of violating the G+ real-name policy".
But they do not say, and would have to to make me comfortable, "we will not force any G+/real-name policies on users of other Google services".
They're just saying they won't just suspend you over it, not that they won't force a transition at some point. I don't fear for my data with Google like I would with other companies, but the continuity of that address is its value. If I'm forced to change it I won't bother coming back.
Sure, but they appear to be moving to single-sign-in for all their services and that single thing is a real-name based identity service.
Google has reportedly closed other accounts that predated G+ for G+ problems. I don't know if they'll push that to gmail too but they haven't said they won't.
I'm not calling them bastards based on no evidence or anything but I'm not using gmail for anything important because I can't really count on it.
I had exactly the same reaction. G+ woke me up to just how much information one company had about me and how dishonest they were willing to be about the reasons for their policies surrounding that information.
Rather than G+ driving me into Google's arms it drove me out.
"A method is described for tracking information about the activities of users of a social networking system while on another domain." – Facebook Patent application dated September 22, 2011
Creeps and liars.
Google must be shooting for just sincerely creepy. Competitive advantage there.
I disagree, I'd wager most people that use a google account already use it only for gmail, as there's little interest in logging in to their other services.
my point is that most people dont create a different google account for each google service they use. They use one account, for however many google services they do use.
my sister uses her account for gmail and picasa and for uploading to youtube.
my dad uses his account for gmail, picasa, and android market.
my mom uses just gmail
as, or if, people add Google services, they use their one account. The only normal person use case for creating more accounts is for having two accounts with one service, i.e. 2 gmails, 2 picasas, 2 youtubes, etc.
my point is that most people dont create a different google account for each google service they use. They use one account, for however many google services they do use.
Not me. (Anecdata, selection bias and all that.)
I used to be able to bounce between youtube and gmail with different accounts, in the same browser session. Then one day I was greeted with the Universal Google Session. Now I need to use different browsers.
However, given Google's direction, I'm looking to replace my Google services usage with non-Google alternatives, so this will be a short-lived problem for me.
No point using separate IDs for different services. Google will still tie them together. Here's a little story (that might scare you).
A few months ago, my brother bought an android phone. He synced contacts with his gmail account. And when I looked at my info on his contact list, I saw that gmail had associated my name with a couple of accounts I had made as a kid and haven't used in half a decade. How they did that, I don't know.
In any case, that aside, I really don't mind that they are profiling me as long as the intent remains good. I like it that the ads are tailored for me. I like that youtube suggests videos that I might be interested in. I like it that I don't have to sign in over and over again to login to different services. These are all features to me and a majority of the internet using public.
If you don't want to be profiled you should consider pooling money and creating your own email service with like-minded people, use diaspora/anonymous boards for networking etc. Avoiding google is do-able. It just requires more resources.
I find that most people who are complaining are neither willing to give up a bit of privacy nor are they willing to pay more or work harder to protect their privacy. You can't eat your cake and have it too!
If you don't want to be profiled you should consider pooling money and creating your own email service with like-minded people, use diaspora/anonymous boards for networking etc. Avoiding google is do-able. It just requires more resources.
Absolutely. I may go back to running my own mail server, or keep sing Google for apps while dropping YouTube in favor of Vimeo, and moving to Diaspora and skipping g+.
I find that most people who are complaining are neither willing to give up a bit of privacy nor are they willing to pay more or work harder to protect their privacy. You can't eat your cake and have it too!
Yes; for example I noticed that some Occupy<CityOrPlace> groups are on the one the hand complaining about companies violating privacy and using personal data for economic fodder while at the same time happily using Facebook to as their "homepage".
At some point principles have to trump convenience.
My point is that 'most people' I refer to didn't create different google accounts, they created a singular gmail account. You seem to be focused on 'active user' accounts, the google account with gmail is now 'contagious' and is automatically signing you up for stuff that you never signed up for before: e.g. youtube.
GMail users are the biggest users of "other" Google services around, because of the integrated login. Because of the "contagion" working over time.
Most normal people like that behavior. I had all these Google contacts on my computer, now they're on my phone when I bought it and signed in. Or I made Google checkout for my phone, now I can rent movies on Youtube. Or buy a book I saw in search results. And my phtos from my phone go right to Picasa. Where I can use the Google checkout to buy photo prints of them.
That your Android account is your gmail account is your youtube account is a selling point of Google services to a normal person.
I heard that Android thing is doing pretty well, and it is the single most heavily account integrated thing Google has ever done. The contagion seems to be working so far as "active user" accounts go.
You are mistaken in thinking you have to be logged in to be a user. I'm still using youtube, just not logged in.
I don't have a problem with an integrated login which is what they've had up until now, and which your family have been using successfully. I do have a problem with an automatically integrated login - one of the reasons I avoided google+, and indeed the Android. It's the automatic behaviour that I labelled 'contagious'. All these convenience functions that you bring up sound fantastic if you can opt in and opt out at will, however it's the automatic nature of this 'contagion' that is annoying.
Don't try to speak for a 'normal person', it's a poor choice of words in any case. Privacy conscious people are not abnormal. I know plenty of people for whom having their photos go from their phone to picasa automatically would be an absolute nightmare, and they have very normal privacy concerns.
I'm sure you do not subscribe to "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".
What I hope that Google will guarantee, related to G+, is a complete control over which of those dots can become public; if G+ is an identity service (whatever that might mean) I want to have control over what I show of my identity and to whom. Something where I'm willing to cut some more slack to Google than to Facebook, given their track records, but not so much more.