I don't do the whole social network thing, but it's getting to the point where it's beggining to look threatening to our beautiful internet. Everything that is free and crazy and organic and chaotic and spontaneous, thry must corrupt for profit. Makes me feel sick. Do no evil? I bet everyone wishes they had not been lied to in order to join this. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/31/google_plus_identity_service/
Is it "Google plus" or the whole social networking thing in general that you object to? Maybe it is slightly more Orwellian, but then people are sheep and the whole notion of social networking is a huge communal bleat.
People are sheep and the whole notion of social networking is a huge communal bleat. You've captured my sentiments quite nicely with the above statement. I have my sociable moments, but I don't need an umbilical cord to connect me to society 24/7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-6vcpVQL48&feature=fvsr
I do object to the whole social networking thing, but going against that is like swimming against a tide. People are not going to quit social networking, I came to terms with that. You're probably aware of the whole polemic around google's decision to allow only real names and erase all accounts using pseudonyms. I guess that the reason behind that is now out in the open. What got me making this thread was all the deception involved. Google marketed Google+ as a social network alternative to Facebook, had millions of people join, and are now saying it's not a social network after all, it's an identity service. While it's true that most people will just shrug and say whatever to this, I don't think a company should be allowed to advertise something, and deliver another. Another that coincidentally makes having a large member base incredibly profitable. Google now has the world's biggest focus group, fully automated, and serving 24/7. Now, to the people who object being lied to and then used in this manner, good luck getting their info erased.
I think it deserves a class action suit. If those even exist still. If there is any chance this is going to be brought up, it'll probably come from either EFF or ACLU. BTW, give your money to EFF and ACLU, they are the people watching our backs when nobody else is. http://www.aclu.org/ https://www.eff.org/
Just out of curiosity what if for example you wanted to have every posting you've ever done on this forum deleted would it be possible? And if you wanted to remove everything you’re ever posted on the Internet and remove your digital footprint could you do it?
Highly unlikely, because others would have linked to your posts somewhere along the way and from there, the web is spun, and we are all undone....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How was anyone lied to? Joining the service has always required mandatory real name disclosure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google+ Arthur
Shirley, you jest. Highly doubtful. Not to mention backups of servers and folders that the service providers HAVE to keep, cached pages, etc...
[paraphrased quote] From "The Prisoner". While indeed Identity does have it's uses, it shouldn't be something that is forced. Ideally on the internet it's best to allow the duality, the anonymity and then those that have identity. It's likely this is where Schmidt is suggesting a "rank" system to suggest that identified people will gain perks and priorities over those that are not identified. I'm pretty sure some historian could likely find various instances were "those that make the policies" attempt to label people and likely fall foul of walking a very tight line towards Eugenics. (weeding the undesirables out) I have to admit I've had a plan for an identity schema for a while, the intension was/is to build something similar to the OpenID scheme, but instead of only dealing with just a login, actually dealing with an individual persons data. The idea being that a company created to deal with just data-handling, is by definition going to be looking at securing that data far more closely than companies that either have a few in house employees or contract it out to third-party companies to handle. The idea is that an Individual fills out what data they want themselves, they then have control over which companies have access to that information. All companies are then vetted in the sense that all the entries that ask, "Will you allow us to share information with third-parties" are automatically defined as a no. The companies would not be allowed to house data on the individual unless apart of a cloud service (that is shredded and encrypted), and those companies only by default would access the data that is classed as "required" by that company. When an individual makes an agreement with a company about sharing information with them, it will require them looking through what information is going to be shared, if they agree then any contractual agreement can be met, if they don't agree then the company will simply not supply a service. The reason for forcing those companies to use this systems database over there own in-house method isn't just about security, but also about allowing the individual to know what information is being stored on them by that company. The capacity to "Read-Only" any company data in regards to that individual would automatically be available through the individual signing in online. There will of course be those concerned about what security measures would be put in place to protect their data, like I have mentioned the process would involve a mixture of encryption and "Shredding". This means that no single database is used, and any data stored in any single database is itself of little use to anyone without the other "parts". Even if the parts are put together they still need to be decrypted first and then decrypted as a whole. This means that the data is "Never" in a readable format to the employee's of the company that houses the data. The process of putting a jigsaw together and decrypting would require a multiple of supervisors to "conspire" their credentials together and this would only ever happen under high court orders. If such a system was developed it would replace in-house database system, that can be individual security risks, that can have data discrepancies and allow an individual to know what information is being stored (and potentially even have a log of any access where the information has been recompiled and viewed, so they know who, when and where someone was accessing that information)
And yet.....whatsoever the best of intentions may describe, there will ever be those who contrive to deconstruct for negative purpose. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Once one has dipped their toe into the virtual waters of the electronic medium, none may predict where the ripples shall eventual make shore. It's not like any of us has any control, despite thinking so. One's personal information is demanded by government to be on-line for everything from banking, health care, income tax etc. To get my new 'secure' Yukon drivers license, I had to produce a document with both my maiden name AND my married name on it, in addition to birth certificate, photo ID, utility bill with current address and health care card. This was not even mentioned in their wonderfully informative leaflet enclosed with the 'YOU WILL DO THIS BY THIS DATE' request. This is a discriminatory demand, IMO, but I dutifully unearthed my marriage license, which was a considerable feat in itself, lol....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The policy when i was a mod was no, because it would wreck the flow of threads, peoples responces would have no contex on a side issue facebook on the other hand were forced to delete whole profiles at peoples requests, one again it doesnt delete what you have said on someone eleses wall but it does get rid of "you"
I saw this in the SMH, it seems to explain it comprehensively. "The former marketing director of Facebook, and sister of co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, believes anonymity on the web "has to go away". And Google's chairman and former CEO, Eric Schmidt, argues that anonymity on the internet is "dangerous" and that the Google+ social network is an "identity service" allowing people to know if you are a "real person as opposed to a dog, or a fake person, or a spammer". He says governments the world over may eventually put an end to anonymity online. One Sydney academic told Fairfax we may even have to start paying for privacy in the future, speculating a paid-for Facebook or Google service could be on the horizon for those who wished to stay anonymous online." From SMH http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...line-has-net-users-fuming-20110905-1jtda.html
Maybe we will 'luck-out' . . . get a huge EMP. solar flare, or gamma ray burst that ill 'erase' all info stored on e-media . . . . . OOPS! . . . . never mind . . . such would likely erase us, as well! Remember: Brevity and Levity - two cornerstones of the Universe. wlminex
