NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Google+'s "Identity" Controversy: No Easy Answers
Google+'s "Identity" Controversy: No Easy Answers
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000880.html
In the mere two weeks since Google+ began becoming available to the
public, reactions to the service (including from yours truly) have
been overwhelmingly positive.
But judging from queries I've been receiving, one concern -- user
identities -- has been rising significantly in its intensity, reaching
the level of an article included in the New York Times today
( http://j.mp/oQWcFt ). Examples of concerned bloggers' takes on this
topic can be viewed here ( http://j.mp/obJ6NH [Dwell on It] ) and here
( http://j.mp/oLERHI [My So-called Virtual Life] ).
There are some issues where analysis and answers seem relatively
obvious. Identity is not one of these "easy" topics.
I am a strong supporter in general of the right of persons to be
anonymous so long as they aren't using that anonymity in fraudulent,
criminal, or similarly antisocial ways. For example, I am very
concerned that the Facebook commenting system now used on many sites
may allow for the unnecessary and potentially dangerous linking of
(for example) users' public, work, and personal lives by external
parties ( http://j.mp/hQ36EA [Lauren's Blog] ).
I spoke to Google representatives at some length this afternoon about
identity issues in the context of Google+. I think it's fair to say
that we all appreciated that the intricacies of this area are still
very much evolving.
Practically speaking, there really aren't any differences at this time
(as I understand the situation) between Google+ policies and Google
Profile polices. Some of the expressed concerns about these are based
on misconceptions or misunderstandings, others are not.
For example, it is not true that Google Profiles/Google+ require that
you use your legal name. In fact, in an effort to avoid fraudulent
identity proliferation, Google wants people to use the name by which
users are generally known by their family, friends, and so on -- which
is not necessarily a formal name in the legal sense.
Some observers have pointed to a February 2011 Google Public Policy
Blog posting "The freedom to be who you want to be"
( http://j.mp/rhpd7r ), and have suggested that the Google+ policies
contradict that posting.
This also appears to be a misunderstanding. That posting did not
assert that Google would support "unidentified" or "pseudonymous"
usage for all Google services, rather that different levels of
identification would likely be appropriate for different services.
You can be fully unidentified (as described in that posting) when
using Google Search, for example.
Another related issue has been concerns about the use of non-anonymous
identities by persons dealing with sensitive situations such as
alternative lifestyles or oppressive governmental regimes.
Addressing specifically the latter point, Google says that -- at this
time -- they do not consider Google+ to be an appropriate discussion
platform for persons in situations where not being anonymous might put
them at risk of harm.
If you sense that we don't yet have full "closure" on some of these
specific concerns you'd be right -- but this is a reflection of the
fundamental complexity and sometimes contrary nature of these matters,
not an indication of bad faith.
How does one allow arbitrary pseudonyms and still avoid the fraudulent
impersonation of celebrities and other individuals who aren't so well
known? How can a user's assertion that they are "commonly" known by a
particular pseudonym be validated in a timely and practical manner?
Keeping in mind that crooks will use any opening to perpetuate
crime -- with identity-related exploits high on the list these days --
getting identity issues "right" in these systems is of paramount
concern.
For now, we're faced with the reality that even with the best of
intentions all around, broadly "correct" answers to many of these
questions simply do not yet fully exist. The wide scope of identity
policy parameters and associated technologies to implement them are in
many key aspects still in their infancies.
But even in this rapidly evolving landscape, there are positive
suggestions we can make regarding Google+/Google Profiles and other
systems with similar identity-related aspects.
It is clearly the case that users need to fully understand what names
are or are not acceptable for their use. When other than "legal"
names are permitted, users need to know that a logical and fair
process is in place to determine which other names will be permitted,
how these users can demonstrate that their usage of those names are
legitimate, and that when names are rejected, be assured that users
are fully informed as to why rejections took place. Additionally,
there should be a formal appeals procedure that users may invoke if
they feel that a name was unreasonably rejected.
All of this will mean more "hands-on" and potentially more costs as
well. But identity in general, and the "names we go by" in
particular, are among our most personal of attributes, even when we
choose to use them in public.
It is unreasonable in the extreme to expect Google to untangle the
enormously thorny questions of identity and anonymity as if with a
magic wand, especially only two weeks into Google+'s limited public
availability.
Luckily, we are at the beginning of this road, not the end. There is
a great deal of work yet to be done toward understanding, designing,
implementing, and deploying the kinds of identity policies and tools
that we'll need to cover a very wide range of situations.
But this is indeed the path toward helping to make sure that the
Internet ultimately respects identities of all sorts as legitimately
used, rather than abuse or unnecessarily restrict them.
In the context of the Net, we're now only really taking the first
steps in that direction. There's a long way to go.
Let's make it a journey well spent.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com