Criticism on Google Privacy – Google Buzz, Real names, Google+, and Nymwars
Google Buzz
On February 9, 2010, Google launched Google Buzz, Google's microblogging service. Anyone with a Gmail account was automatically added as a contact to pre-existing Gmail contacts, and had to opt out if they did not wish to participate.
The launch of Google Buzz as an "opt-out" social network immediately drew criticism for violating user privacy because it automatically allowed Gmail users' contacts to view their other contacts.
Real names, Google+, and Nymwars
Google Plus (G+) was launched in late June 2011. The new service gained 20 million members in just a few weeks. At the time of launch, the site's user content and conduct policy stated, "To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you." Starting in July 2011, Google began enforcing this policy by suspending the accounts of those who used pseudonyms. Starting in August 2011, Google provided a four-day grace period before enforcing the real name policy and suspending accounts. The four days allowed members time to change their pen name to their real name. The policy extends to new accounts for all of Google services, including Gmail and YouTube, although accounts existing before the new policy are not required to be updated. In late January 2012 Google began allowing members to use nicknames, maiden names, and other "established" names in addition to their common or real names.
According to Google, the real name policy makes Google more like the real world. People can find each other more easily, like a phone book. The real name policy protects children and young adults from cyber-bullying, as those bullies hide behind pen names.
A number of high-profile commentators have publicly criticized Google's policies, including technologists Jamie Zawinski, Kevin Marks, and Robert Scoble and organisations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Criticisms have been wide-ranging, for example:
The policy is not like the real world, because real names and personal information are not known to everyone in the off-line world.
The policy fails to acknowledge long-standing Internet culture and conventions.
Using real names online can disadvantage or endanger some individuals, such as victims of violence or harassment. The policy prevents users from protecting themselves by hiding their identity. For example, a person who reports a human rights violation or crime and posts it on YouTube can no longer do so anonymously. The dangers include possible hate crimes, retaliation against whistle-blowers, executions of rebels, religious persecution, and revenge against victims or witnesses of crimes.
Using a pseudonym is different from anonymity, and a pseudonym used consistently denotes an "authentic personality".
Google's arguments fail to address the financial gain represented by connecting personal data to real-world identities.
Google has inconsistently enforced their policy, especially by making exceptions for celebrities using pseudonyms and mononyms.
The policy as stated is insufficient for preventing spam.
The policy may run afoul of legal constraints such as the German "Telemediengesetz" federal law, which makes anonymous access to online services a legal requirement.
The policy does not prevent trolls. It is up to social media to encourage the growth of healthy social norms, and forcefully telling people how they must behave cannot be efficient.
Views: 0
