Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

8/22/2011
05:32 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

5 Reasons Google+'s Name Policy Fails

Google should rethink its policy and empower users rather than restrict them.

Google should have recognized that the similarity between its Google+ name policy and the Internet usage policies favored by authoritarian regimes represents a problem.

The company's recently launched social network requires that users sign up under the name by which they're referred to in real life.

But not only is this maddeningly vague definition inconsistently applied, as has been demonstrated by individuals with unusual names like Stilgherrian and Violet Blue, it is poorly thought out. Some even suggest it is evil.

No, not evil on the scale of mayhem and physical harm. Evil as Google meant it in its unofficial motto, "Don't be evil." Evil with a small "e."

Google, like Facebook before it, offers a social network that doubles as a surveillance network.

Google maintains that it has only users' best interests at heart. But the company is doing as much harm as good by insisting on such an inflexible policy. It is depriving users of the opportunity to define their own level of comfort with online identity.

Google's legitimate interest in defining Google+ names extends to the aesthetic--insisting on a standard set of alpha-numeric characters--and the protective--insisting on non-offensive names. But Google should not be forcing users to participate in its social network under such inflexible terms.

The Google+ user should be able to choose to interact under his or her legal name, a pseudonym, or anonymously.

And in turn, other users of Google+ should be able to determine whether they want to see content generated by identified, pseudonymous, or anonymous users.

These decisions are not Google's business. Yet Google and its peers have made identity their business. Identity has become important because Facebook and the social gaming industry have proven that it appeals to the mass market audience.

Real names turn the hostile Internet into a friendlier place, like Disney World or the social gaming world, where people feel safe enough to pay for virtual seed to grow crops. This is a business that Google covets, as its newly launched Google+ Games section suggests. The focus on identity is not directly about marketing--a cookie ID number works as well as a real name. Rather, it's about building an environment that's minimally hostile to marketing and about making it easy for friends to find one another.

Identity is also essential for accountability. And therein lies the problem. By denying its users the ability to operate pseudonymously, Google is making Google+ users accountable to perceptions derived from online postings, activities, and associations. Accountability of this sort has consequences:

Google's Policy Exposes Users To Potential Harassment And Persecution

Unless Google's intent is for Google+ to be filled with banal, uncontroversial chatter, Google+ users can be expected say things that generate controversy. When there's legitimate cause to identify these people, existing legal processes will suffice to keep order. But Google's policy goes beyond what's necessary. It enables anyone with an axe to grind to target a Google+ user for harassment.

Google's Policy Stifles The Free Exchange Of Ideas

When people fear that their posts or profiles may be misconstrued or held against them, they won't speak freely. Anonymous and pseudonymous speech have a long, noble tradition in the history of American democracy. Google's lack of tolerance for this tradition is disappointing, to put it mildly.

Google's Policy Is Not Being Enforced Fairly

There's no shortage of reports of problems with the way Google has enforced its policy. It's hardly surprising. Names, and how people use them, vary and aren't going to fit into Google's box.

And it will get worse when Google allows businesses to participate: Businesses are pseudonymous entities in that their names aren't necessarily tied to the individual or individuals operating the business. Yet, a business can be formed by an individual, often without disclosing the identity of those involved in the business.

This is what's going to happen: Those seeking to use pseudonyms on Google+ will file fictitious name statements, or form some business entity, in order to use Google+ under a name that's not their own. Google should give up now, before it gets worse.

Google's Policy Denies Privacy

It's already well-established that employers and lawyers trawl through social networks. Without pseudonyms, the activities of Google+ users can more easily be correlated, on and off Google+. There are plenty of reasons that people may wish aspects of their lives to remain separate.

Google says it takes user privacy very seriously. Type "define: privacy" into Google and you get this: "The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people." One could argue that social networks are inherently antithetical to privacy, but there's no good reason that Google couldn't offer both a social network and the limited privacy of a pseudonym.

Google Supports Pseudonyms Elsewhere

Google has already allowed pseudonyms with other services, like YouTube. Were the company to devote some of its considerable resources to improving comment filtering options, it would have quality discussion there too.

If Google really cares about its users--and projects like its Data Liberation Front suggest it does--then the company should revise its policy to be more tolerant of pseudonyms and revise its technology to give users the ability to block content by varying levels of identity. Google+ users, not Google, should setting the parameters for interaction.

See the latest IT solutions at Interop New York. Learn to leverage business technology innovations--including cloud, virtualization, security, mobility, and data center advances--that cut costs, increase productivity, and drive business value. Save 25% on Flex and Conference Passes or get a Free Expo Pass with code CPFHNY25. It happens in New York City, Oct. 3-7, 2011. Register now.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...