Hacker News Reader

This isn't even about your own perceived "real name". If I have a relationship with a company and they know my real name I expect them not to leak it to the world. Period. My business is with them and that's about it.

When you initially signed up with GMail you signed up for an e-mail address, not a public directory that links your e-mail address to your real name.

When you signed up to YouTube, you signed up providing a pseudonym. The implicit assumption is that your pseudonym is used to identify yourself to other users of the same service. You did not expect your comments, your videos and interactions to be linked to your real name.

The same principle applied to virtually every Google service.

Google broke that trust with a series of glaring mistakes.

I honestly lost any ounce of trust I ever had in Google.

I have no fucking idea what they have done with my real name.

Every day there is a possibility that Google has come up with yet another obscure shit service that decides to integrate itself with a user's main account and trumpet real life information to the world without the user's consent.

> When you signed up to YouTube, you signed up providing a pseudonym. The implicit assumption is that your pseudonym is used to identify yourself to other users of the same service. You did not expect your comments, your videos and interactions to be linked to your real name.

This point I particularly identify with and it's gotten to the point where I no longer comment on YouTube videos nor leave app reviews on Google Play because I don't want my real name published everywhere on the web.

I can't even begin to identify with the transgender community about the issues Google have willingly created.

I think it's about time the EU (or other governing body) stepped in an mandated that users are entitled to pseudonyms for internet services.

I doubt the EU (or other governing bodies) are very willing to help.

If they were to decide, everything you put on the 'net would be digitally signed with a key on your passport. (yeah, slight hyperbole - unfortunately not too much)

I don't think so. The EU is very sensitive about data protection. Of course they want to be able to trace you but they have their means.

This is not the USA.

So much this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Google's blown every shred of trust I have in it. I've used the company's services since 1998, for search, for mail, its OS, its corporate tools.

To the extent I can avoid using them now (and in the case of email where another party uses Google it's pretty much impossible), I do. And will continue to reduce my footprint.

And I can trace pretty much all of that to G+ and specific statements and actions of Eric "I'll sue you for publishing my home address" Schmidt, Sergey "Sleeping with my subordinate" Brin, and Larry "We'll fight the NSA while carrying their water" Brin. Honorable mentions to Vic "Not my real name" Gundotra and others.

Are there still good people at Google? Yes. Has the company lost its soul? Completely.

I'm sympathetic, but my view is that nothing I do online or electronically (text messages, email, etc.) is really private. The temptations for companies like Google, Facebook, etc. to abuse their trust are just too great to think it won't happen. If there's something I don't want anyone to know, I don't reveal it. I don't use G+, LinkedIn, or Facebook. I don't put deeply private things in email or text messages. Even here, I would not post anything private because if HN or any authority ever decided they wanted to find out who I am, it would almost certainly be possible.

Nothing you do online is really private. But maybe some of it should be. And if Google, Facebook, et al. hadn't been slowly lowering the bar of privacy protection, we might've had a more robust culture of privacy in Silicon Valley.

Privacy is not all or nothing. It is about context. Information _x_ may be shareable with person _p_, but might be an invasion of privacy if it is shared with other people.

So "not putting deeply private stuff in an email" is not practical in general. Even shallowly private stuff would become deeply private in a different context.

There's a reason why I was using my G+ account pseudonymously.

However, when Google went out of its way to link up multiple accounts despite my telling them not to, the trust was broken. It's one thing to make an inadvertent disclosure yourself on some mailing list or another, it's quite another to have activities from multiple sources aggregated and de-anonymized for you.

I'm of an age which learned "you don't transact personal business online". I've found e-commerce, online banking, social networking, and the like to be highly curious in that regard, and the long tail of tears (yes, with many successes) to be rather predictable. Maintaining an offline separation for these activities isn't a perfect solution either, though it does generally provide me with plausible deniability and far fewer opportunities to worry about disclosure, though integrating surveillance into phones with integrated GPS tracking your location everywhere makes things a tad more difficult (read Stallman's many postings on this topic).

It's not that I'm planning on a life of crime or terror, but I've already seen my (largely professional / intellectual) online activities come back to me, and by disassociating myself from what I do in my online an offline life (much as you describe), I'm sparing myself that pain.

Facebook is arguably worse than Google in this regard, but both companies have a positively autistic lack of emotional comprehension over this issue.

Personally, I prefer people use their real names if possible, but know that it is not always so.

I don't think Larry and Sergey is that bad, which is why I posted this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7054902

I'm in the same boat. I actually didn't find out what my first name was until I was in 2nd grade and I saw my birth certificate for the first time. My parents named me "Mohandas" after Gandhi, but were concerned about that being the name I went by, so not only did I always go by "Schuyler", my 2nd name, but my 2nd, 3rd & last names were on every legal document I ever filed.

About 3 years ago an agent at the RMV in MA, while looking at my birth certificate, which has all 4 names on it, decided that my license had to be issued to Mohandas. I showed her everything I had, passport, taxes, etc. yet she wouldn't relent and I couldn't figure out any way to protest it. At first it didn't really matter, until I got a letter from my bank that my car insurance was issued through, that I was Mohandas now, so far as they were concerned.

Then, when I went to get a license in my new state, they also insisted, though they were much more polite about it and raised the issue up to supervisors, etc. In the end they sent me to get a current copy of my social security card, which didn't have Mohandas written on it. When I arrived at the SSA...they balked at the difference and issued me a new card with Mohandas in first, and my 3rd name dropped completely. That sealed the deal at the DMV, so now my social security number, my license, my bank statements, utilities, etc. are all issued to "Mohandas" which isn't an identity I have any connection to.

Sorry for the rant, it's just been a frustrating, strange couple years as I've watched my lifelong identity transform out of my control.

EDIT: Would also like to add that in the scope of the article and the very real suffering this issue is causing an already embattled minority, my issue is absolutely not comparable.

Sorry to hear about your trouble. All of these agencies have a process for changing your name. It can be frustrating, but changing a name is a routine procedure, so it shouldn't be too hard to undo the damage (though of course would have been easier if you did it as soon as MassDOT forced you).

So...I know that. And I shouldn't have said "have no connection to", that was absolutely false and just the frustration speaking. Mohandas was a name for my family and my dearest friends. As I got older, I got bolder about sharing it with many more people, but it remained something only the closest people in the world called me. My best man calls me "MoTowne" (first & last mashed up), my family at reunions occasionally say it. It makes me so happy when those people can identify me by what is an important part of my identity, but so separate from my daily life.

It is bitter to me that what my father once described as a name that was "Just for us" is now on "YOU'RE PRE-APPROVED" mailings from credit companies. It is bitter to me that I'm seriously considering changing my name as I do care. And it is bitter to me that it has changed my plans for my own children. I so loved having a private, meaningful identity to those closest to me that I wanted to pass the same thing on to my children. I've had the names selected for years, yet now I feel like I'd just be subjecting them to the same sort of trouble down the line.

I know it's a weirdly singular issue to have, and it's far from the end of the world, but, again quoting my father, "There's nothing wrong with having a little ambiguity about your identity." In fact...he may have even said "good to have." And I tend to agree with him.

All of that said, I very much appreciate your response.

You do not have to go through this. You may change your name legally for any reason as long as you are not trying to defraud anyone if you live in the US or a common law country. Your name is someone that you choose to be known by.

Generally you just need to go to a judge and get a court order of your new desired legal name, and prove that you aren't trying to evade taxes or defraud anyone. Then you can bring that paperwork to the proper people.

Look up the process in your new state and get your documents reissued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change

EDIT: if you still want to keep Mohandas, maybe try keeping it as a second name, or part of your first name. Like you can be "Schuyler Mohandas" as your first name. Having two first names is common in some areas, such as the American South.

Your edit is actually a great idea, and I know it seems simple, yet, in my annoyance it genuinely hadn't occurred to me. Thanks so much for the reply!

This, pretty much. I have a friend who had to change her (legal) name due to a stalker, and consequently never uses it anywhere online (she uses an alias on facebook).

Given that's a lie about her identity, she could be quickly distrusted if she ever appears in a court. And that's a preety huge consequence of the Real Name Policy.

"Changing a legal name" is a legal process and the result, a new name for the same person, is no more a lie than choosing a nickname for oneself. From a legal standpoint, the changed name is now a legally permissible "lie."

This does not result in mistrust by a court because the legal system was involved in the change. Of course, all this assumes the "change in legal name" went through the legal process.

Actually changing your "legal name" in many places isn't a "legal process" at all. Not if you mean a state-managed, form-filling exercise.

In the UK for example the law only specifies you must make a public declaration of your intent to use a new name (a notice in a local newspaper will do), and then completely abandon any all use of the old name. Even the venerable old 'Deed Poll' service is just a mechanism to make that initial declaration, it's actually a private register.

In the U.S. anyway, you have the right to use any name by which you represent yourself consistently without intent to defraud, much akin to a common-law marriage.

The changed name is NOT a "lie". Changed name is her new name. As far as law is concerned, new name is the truth about her identity.

And I'm not sure that court would take it against person if that person uses alias online. After all, it is general advice for teenagers not to reveal their names online.

I think they were referring to "she uses an alias on facebook".

I.e., Facebook requiring real names pushes the alias towards being a negative reputation component

this isn't the problem. you can create a google account with whatever name you want, and as long as it looks like a regular name, they will never notice and not care.

the problem is they have different accounts with different names that are linked (android and g+) but the names are leaking through. it is hardly surprising that it is tricky to prevent that from a UX perspective.

this actually has nothing to do with "real names".

It's actually trivial to prevent from a programming perspective: don't automatically link accounts, and even if they are "linked" (for login purposes), don't import/export personal information from them.

Now, a disclaimer -- I think how Google has approached this is dumb.

But, what if linking that info allows for better UX and features for your customers? At least for the majority. There will always be edge cases, in any feature we as developers ever build... Is it really as simple as "never do that, ever"?

In Google/YouTube/Google+ -- yeah, I think you can make an argument that people expected those accounts to be separate when they made them and G should not have forced them to link them. Bad form. But I honestly can see some cases where that sort of linking can be used positively.

In my humble opinion, the real issue is 1. How google forced the linkages, and before their latest "Pages" feature (which is hard to use even still) didn't allow for a workaround, 2. How long everyone's google and YouTube and android accounts have existed for. You made your YouTube account thinking it was separate. Now it's not, and that's an issue, due to a (correct at the time) assumption you made in the past, and that's not your fault.

It's a shame that this is such a mess. The only Google product I still use is Search these days. They lost my trust over a year ago now.

For me, as a developer and user, the main priority is only one:

  Don't cause irreversible consequences.

That's the reason we have the "Are you sure you want to delete this?" dialogue boxes where it matters and "Undo" buttons where it doesn't.

Given the nature of the internet, the developers (especially Google) should know that once you link two accounts/names, you can't unlink them, so preventing accidental linking should be their priority.

This is the same reason I don't support automatic updates that introduce breaking changes, and I rarely even update my apps nowadays. This is also probably the reason I will buy an iPhone next time, even though I strongly oppose their closed-source/walled-garden philosophy - my my personal information and well-being are more important than open source, and at least I'm paying Apple with money, not information.

Fwiw, I made the same decision with my device choice, for the same reasons. I do run my own calendar and contacts server over SSL, to help safeguard things a bit more, as I don't trust Apple all that much either.

Far and away the biggest problem with all of this is that it's not opt-in. None of it. Not even the decision to have a G+ account at all, unless you posit that everyone who signed up an email account a decade ago before "social network" was even a thing.

To then turn around and call it "user error" when some forced integration has undesired consequences is just abominable.

Wrong.

If you happen to provide similar identifiers or contacts on multiple services, they'll join them.

That's what happened with G+ and YouTube.

The mobile phone number Google kept requesting for two-factor identification -- oh, we'll use that to show your G+ profile to people who know your phone number. Fucking no fucking way you will. My G+ identity is pseudonymous, the phone number, unfortunately, isn't (and no, I didn't provide it). But sho' nuff, Google provided _that_ particular retroactive feature.

App Store ratings -- those are under your Real Name now.

Location / store reviews? Dittos.

I've asked 'em, they won't answer. But, Google, if you want us to not think you're working hand in hand with the NSA, stop carrying their water for them.

>Google, if you want us to not think you're working hand in gith the NSA, stop carrying their water for them.

I love this line and it sums up all my frustration about Google. They want me to think they're not in league with the spy agencies when they're the biggest spy agency there is.

Google works for their customers: advertisers. Linking real names is central to identity management, which gives them a much better product for their advertisers.

This isn't about the NSA, and it certainly isn't about you. They're a company, they want money.

The interests of the NSA and advertisers often coincide.

The water-carrying may not be intentional (though it also may be). But it is water. And they're carrying it.

This is true to a point right? It's obvious that one you have users, you have value which you sell to the highest bidder whoever they are. They forgot who brought them value. It was the contract of a great product and the original user, us the people. If you want to remind them, leave en masse.

I guess I'll have to do my part and switch out as many of my services as possible.

> The mobile phone number Google kept requesting for two-factor identification -- oh, we'll use that to show your G+ profile to people who know your phone number.

Is this true? If so, holy shit. The sad point is that Google has broken so much trust that it would not surprise me at all. And it's actually prudent to assume as much.

Let's see what I can find:

http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/voice/HDkcM-0a...

Here's my earlier G+ post. The biggest problem: before submitting your phone number there's no way to tell what the company will do with the information

https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/gA73LST6...

In some countries like Spain, you don't have a right to decide what your (legal) name is. Your parents are required to register your father's first surname as your first surname, and your mother's first surname as your second surname. You may only change the order of your surnames, and there is a specific legal process to do this.

In Spain you can also change your given name without much problem (though it has all the inconveniences of bureaucratic processes, fees, etc) It is not possible to change from a male to a female name or viceversa (unless you are legally changing your gender, which has its own, more complicated process). There are unisex names, but are pretty uncommon in Spanish, though I guess using a foreign name could be a trick in these cases.

(Note: People have two surnames in Spanish, the first one inherited normally from the father, and the second from the mother [1])

There are some cases where surnames can be changed, but they follow some rules and it's not very flexible. For example, is not uncommon to join surnames if they are "famous enough", so they will be inherited as one (keeping the reference to the famous ancestor).

In case someone is curious, here is a link (in Spanish) showing the process to change name ad surnames [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_naming_customs [2] http://www.mjusticia.gob.es/cs/Satellite/es/1200666550200/Tr...

> A free "social" site

It is not a free service. You pay for it with your personal information. It is up to you whether you find the price too high. And with the Google+ integration, the price for using Google services is definitely on the rise.

True, but the price should at least be known before making the payment.