The details are here.
Information on changes in Google's "real name" policy that would allow people to protect their identity here.
Oh. Right. Squat.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This comment by Lassi Hippeläinen deserves notice:
Sorry if I sound pedantic - I worked many years as a system architect in computer secutiry - but this argument will not go anywhere, unless its basic terminology is clear. More specifically, there are two concepts that are getting mixed up all the…
Our new Scienceblogs overlords sure have great timing with their new pseudonymous blogging rules. For those who haven't run across that yet, National Geographic has decided to eliminate pseudonyms and force everyone with a blog remaining here (which is already dwindling) to blog under their real…
Recently, Scienceblogs/National Geographic decided it would no longer host pseudonymous science bloggers. As a result, many of my former colleagues have left. I think this decision was wrong. Read on for my reasons.
One: simple fairness. Several well-established pseudonymous bloggers had been…
Google will now follow you around the internet, as you use e-mail, search, YoutTube, and so on and so forth, as you use web browsers or your Android phone, and you can't opt out. This starts March 1st.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing or not. It depends on exactly what they are doing. It…
Can anyone explain why I need Double plus good google if I've already got Facebook and LinkedIn?
In response to Walt Garage:
Why, to give you even more surveillance than what you've already signed up for!
If it isn't enough that Facebook and LinkedIn are collecting every possible detail about your life, now Google wants to put your identity together with your online activities in a way that would make Zuckerberg squeal with delight if he'd been able to do it.
And just think, if The Government was doing this, everyone would be up in arms about Big Brother.
"You're not being _bugged_, you're being _featured_!"
"Information on changes in Google's "real name" policy that would allow people to protect their identity here".
Yes it's virtually impossible for people to figure out what data is collected by what company, so rule number one is to ignore the policy and simply assume everything is collected and sold.
Given that, I find it interesting that most people expect someone to protect their identity when they voluntarily provide it. Your information (particularity likes and dislikes data) has value, their services have value, it's a fair trade. If you don't bother to protect your own identity in the first place, why should anyone else care?
My private email address that can be used as an index to all sorts of data will be collected when I post this rant. It has value, exactly the right value to buy me one rant on this particular information service. I don't expect SB to put my information in the cellar alongside the stolen art collection, I expect SB will turn it into cash and spend some of it maintaining this service.
The habit of sticking privacy agreements on everything is a recent practice. Free services paid for by advertising are nothing new, tracking subscribers responses to advertising has been going on in the newspaper business for centuries. I agree the internet has taken it to a new level (global village), but at the same time the value gained by both publishers and subscribers has sky-rocketed (as it did when TV became ubiquitous, and before that radio).
In other words, there's no such thing as a free lunch.