Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Privacy Your Rights Online

Google Launches Identity Verification Badge Scheme 241

theodp writes "CNET reports that rather than backing down after complaints about its insistence that Google+ user accounts be opened under a real name, Google has upped the ante and will pin 'verification badges' on users in an effort to assure people that 'the person you're adding to a circle is really who they claim to be.' In a Friday night post, Google employee Wen-Ai Yu explained that the Google+ team is initially 'focused on verifying public figures, celebrities, and people who have been added to a large number of Circles, but we're working on expanding this to more folks.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Launches Identity Verification Badge Scheme

Comments Filter:
  • Google Hypocrisy (Score:2, Informative)

    by TrueSatan ( 1709878 ) on Sunday August 21, 2011 @12:44PM (#37161518)
    I wouldn't touch G+ with an infinitely long bargepole anyway but on top of that it shows their utter hypocrisy as regards real names...consider their rejection of South Korea's demand for use of real names (Real Name Verification Law)...the following link discusses this issue in more detail if you are interested: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2011/08/google_refuses.php [siliconvalleywatcher.com]
  • by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Sunday August 21, 2011 @01:48PM (#37161970)

    If people were known by their real identity then suddenly one part of the greater internet fuckwad theory falls away. Suddenly everyone can see just what a pimple on the ass of humanity you really are when you troll a forum.

    Unfortunately, if online anonymity goes away, free speech will suffer. You may not agree with his views, but Ward Churchill had every right to publish those views -- and then lost his job when the article was dug up years later.

    Unfortunately, a large number of people are relying on online services to communicate, which has undermined many of the anonymity technologies that were developed in the 90s. The network effects of systems like Facebook and Google+ should not be ignored -- people who want to stay off of those systems may be forced to use those systems just to stay in touch with their friends.

  • Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cyberfunkr ( 591238 ) on Sunday August 21, 2011 @03:11PM (#37162558)

    Where did it say it would allow fake names?

    The article is saying Google will start verifying that names are real. Presumably so that when you "circle" Adam Sessler you're getting the nerd you hoped for and not some random dude in Baltimore.

    Now, if you used a "sorta" fake name (like I tend to only use part of my last name) they will crack down to make sure it's completely accurate. You must be who you say you are and leave anonymity in the dust.

  • by Bieeanda ( 961632 ) on Sunday August 21, 2011 @04:00PM (#37162844)

    If people were known by their real identity then suddenly one part of the greater internet fuckwad theory falls away. Suddenly everyone can see just what a pimple on the ass of humanity you really are when you troll a forum.

    A part that shows that the 'theory' is bunk. It's not anonymity that allows and encourages people to be assholes on-line. People are assholes to each other on the highway, on the sidewalk, in the schoolyard and in the home. The only difference that the Internet makes is that it's harder to get back at them. You can't take a swing at someone over TCP/IP. If they're being an asshole from across state lines, or even from across the city, are you really likely to track them down and confront them about what they said about your daughter?

    As for being banned from services, forums and the like-- come on. Most of the time it's not a matter of repeat offenders sneaking back in, it's the insane ratio of users to admins, complicated by huge numbers of users and the often spurious complaints they generate per day. Look at Facebook: the amount of TOS-violating shit (including illegalities, sexism, racism and other things we pretend don't happen in polite society) that slurps through their pipes on a daily basis is virtually incalculable. Does Jimmy Crackerfuck really care that somebody is offended by how much he hates Latinos and East Indians? No. Hell, he may even get off on the attention.

  • by darrylo ( 97569 ) on Sunday August 21, 2011 @04:45PM (#37163074)

    +1 :-)

    Seriously, I'm peeved enough that I'm actually looking around for decent MS exchange hosting for my iPhone (for push calendars and push contacts, not just email). Apple's iCloud almost fits the bill, but they don't allow the use of other (e.g., personal) domains, so they're out.

    So far, based upon a little googling (is this ironic, or what?), I'm leaning towards exchangemymail or 123together. Anyone have other suggestions, or good/bad comments? (Yeah, it's like $14/month, but I'm willing to pay that.)

    I did think about hosting my own server, but I don't know if I want to do all that work (I do have a static IP that isn't in a blacklist, so that's a plus). I think Zarafa is the only game in town if you want push email/contacts/calendar and the iPhone (IIRC, Zimbra is pretty expensive initially, with the break-even point being something like 4-5 years).

  • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Sunday August 21, 2011 @05:36PM (#37163366) Journal

    ... but then I saw your multimillionaire UID.

    Moderation on Slashdot is NOT implicitly objective through moderation by angelic omniscient moderators.
    Moderation on Slashdot is statistically objective through subjective moderation by a random sample of Slashdot members, taken from a subset of Slashdot members who statistically refrain from trolling and flaming.

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Working...