Eric Schmidt: If You Don’t Want To Use Your Real Name, Don’t Use Google+

Google+ was meant to be an identity service, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said this weekend, shedding some light on Google’s reasoning behind Google+’s controversial real-name policy. Google’s requirement that members of its social layer, Google+, use only their real names has been a point of contention for several weeks — especially for people with uncommon names and people who prefer to use pseudonyms. Schmidt’s comments at the Edinburgh International TV Festival reveal a new perspective on Google+.

NPR’s Andy Carvin asked Schmidt how Google justifies its names policy when it could put people at risk.

“He replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they’re going to build future products that leverage that information,” Carvin wrote in a Google+ post. “Regarding people who are concerned about their safety, he said G+ is completely optional. No one is forcing you to use it. It’s obvious for people at risk if they use their real names, they shouldn’t use G+.”

Paraphrasing Schmidt’s comments, Carvin wrote that the Google exec also said the Internet “would be better if we knew you were a real person rather than a dog or a fake person. Some people are just evil and we should be able to ID them and rank them downward.”

http://mashable.com/2011/08/28/google-plus-identity-service

Way ahead of you. Google+ usage is barely used by the early adopters and will be forgotten by the end of the year.

Next!

I'm not interested in their idea of enhancing my experience.

I already see ads in margins that are based on my past usage, and frankly it is disturbing that my computer (and others) know what I think about.

No thanks.

contemplating whether it'd be a good idea for people to do a number of 'fake'google searches everyday that will mess up Google and display ads that might enhance one's image.

The idea of a database full of only fully identified users, which would be a coup for justice officials as well as advertisers, is our future reality. At some point, it will likely encompass most everyone alive.

It seems to me Google is trying to get a head-start. They might not even care how many people join or how often they use the service. It might be a research project simply for the software and implementation theories involved.

There are already databases full of verified and identified users. In the effort to develop a national or global database of users, the problem to date is two fold: finding a way, in implementation and in law, to combine all the data in a useful way and finding a way to keep the data accurate.

The lesson here is not that Google is evil. Rather, it's that your identity on the internet has an intrinsic value that will attract and be exploited by others. This issue can only increase as that value continues to rise, which it will.

It would be wise to develop reasonable and reliable defenses for ourselves. It's not about the President or the Congress. It's about understanding how we use the internet.

Do not go gently into that good night.
Rage, rage at the dying of the light!

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how the hell does G+ know whether I'm using a real or made-up identity?

But screw them for demanding my private info. Big, big error on Google's part to insist on "real" personal data. I agree with the OP, G+ will fade away because of such policies, just like Google Buzz did.

Sad, because I was hoping for something cool and more respectful of it's users' info than facebook. Guess it isn't G+.

And will they offer their "Internet identity services" to state internal security for a price?

Count me out, Mr. Schmidt.

but hey maybe there are lots of people that don't mind having no online privacy that way their boss or whoever can keep tabs on them even when they are not at work...