Walking on the Internet with your true identity is somewhat similar to wearing your religion on the sleeves and walking outside of your house. I could never understand why people do that .... However, just as we don't and shouldn't live in glass house in the offline world, we shouldn't really be totally non-anonymous on the Internet. It is as simple as that but apparently there are way too many people out there on the Internet who do not understand.
I would not go that far. I do prefer people using their real name, and do want the problems to be fixed if possible, but know that it is often not that easy.
From the URL in your profile, you seem to do both of the mentioned things...
I won't post links here but from the link in your HN profile (http://web-wanderings.blogspot.com/) a Google search and thirty seconds or so of time reveals a Name, Yahoo account and Twitter handle, the lattermost of which (and a personal page linked from your Gravatar) both strongly tied to a particular religion.
Is there all that much to putting up the thin layer that is a pseudonym in the face of that?
(Hint: This is a new account created using an IP that isn't my own with no details given - it wouldn't (alone) be enough to hide me from anyone actively watching from HN's servers, but should stand up to after-the-fact checks...)
The patent system has become a joke. Only because of how it is being used, and it's one industry that is driving things to the point of absurdity. There is no integrity to the system, no matter how well-designed it is in theory, when they keep accepting nonsense like this. If filing for these was affordable for anyone, accepting them would have to come to an end. It would not be worth anyone's time to review.
"Social computing". In other words sending messages over a wire using a computer. No one was doing that in the late 60's, in the 70's or in the 80's or even the 90's. This is totally new. Totally fresh. Bleeding edge. Hot. And patentable!
Well, Eric Schmidt once said: "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place" or "Every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends’ social media sites.”
Pretty scary if you think about it that the same guy completely banned a CNet reporter from all Google briefings just because he showed a case of all the information he could find through Google on Eric Schmidt...
Honestly, it would be awesome if Google manages to patent anonymity. It would potentially raise widespread awareness on how absurd the current US patent system is.
There doesn't appear to be anything evil going on here. Google patented a method for having a primary persona in a social network, a number of other personas within the network held by the original persona, and being able to link the secondary personas back to the first for the purpose of mapping relationships, communications, etc. Seems fairly straightforward and I don't know of anything like that being in use with any social network though I could be wrong.
The slashdot posting seems to be little more than flamebait. Google+ is a privately held social network and Google can choose to require real names on it if they so wish. The patent deals with persona mappings on a social network and does not prevent other companies from implementing anonymous communications on their own social networks. It could prevent mapping that information in the method described by the patent but that's it.
I really have no idea why this is on HN unless it's posted as an example of what's wrong with /.
Exactly, I completely don't understand those complaints.
> 'There are lots of places where you can be anonymous online,' Betanews' Joe Wilcox notes. 'Google+ isn't one of them.' Got it. But if online anonymity is so evil, then what's the deal with Google's newly-awarded patent for Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions?
Because they didn't say it's "so" evil, they didn't even say it's just evil, nor did they ban it, they just want you to use your real name on G+. You're still free to post on 4chan from behind two proxies, to write on reddit and traverse irc under your pseudonym, even get a random gmail address, or send encrypted posts to alt.anonymous.messages. Does every community online have to be the same?
[+] [-] webwanderings|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnathan|13 years ago|reply
Non-professional online existence almost invariably happens under a pseudonym.
[+] [-] yuhong|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymous_cwd|13 years ago|reply
I won't post links here but from the link in your HN profile (http://web-wanderings.blogspot.com/) a Google search and thirty seconds or so of time reveals a Name, Yahoo account and Twitter handle, the lattermost of which (and a personal page linked from your Gravatar) both strongly tied to a particular religion.
Is there all that much to putting up the thin layer that is a pseudonym in the face of that?
(Hint: This is a new account created using an IP that isn't my own with no details given - it wouldn't (alone) be enough to hide me from anyone actively watching from HN's servers, but should stand up to after-the-fact checks...)
[+] [-] vibrunazo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] udpheaders|13 years ago|reply
The patent system has become a joke. Only because of how it is being used, and it's one industry that is driving things to the point of absurdity. There is no integrity to the system, no matter how well-designed it is in theory, when they keep accepting nonsense like this. If filing for these was affordable for anyone, accepting them would have to come to an end. It would not be worth anyone's time to review.
"Social computing". In other words sending messages over a wire using a computer. No one was doing that in the late 60's, in the 70's or in the 80's or even the 90's. This is totally new. Totally fresh. Bleeding edge. Hot. And patentable!
[+] [-] kmfrk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thenextcorner|13 years ago|reply
Pretty scary if you think about it that the same guy completely banned a CNet reporter from all Google briefings just because he showed a case of all the information he could find through Google on Eric Schmidt...
[+] [-] olalonde|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcoamorales|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenster07|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droithomme|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gn0s1s|13 years ago|reply
http://www.imagn.com/#!/info/about/features
[+] [-] Tipzntrix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ktsmith|13 years ago|reply
The slashdot posting seems to be little more than flamebait. Google+ is a privately held social network and Google can choose to require real names on it if they so wish. The patent deals with persona mappings on a social network and does not prevent other companies from implementing anonymous communications on their own social networks. It could prevent mapping that information in the method described by the patent but that's it.
I really have no idea why this is on HN unless it's posted as an example of what's wrong with /.
[+] [-] capo|13 years ago|reply
And I don't think they've 'banned it online', case in point: this community.
[+] [-] spindritf|13 years ago|reply
> 'There are lots of places where you can be anonymous online,' Betanews' Joe Wilcox notes. 'Google+ isn't one of them.' Got it. But if online anonymity is so evil, then what's the deal with Google's newly-awarded patent for Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions?
Because they didn't say it's "so" evil, they didn't even say it's just evil, nor did they ban it, they just want you to use your real name on G+. You're still free to post on 4chan from behind two proxies, to write on reddit and traverse irc under your pseudonym, even get a random gmail address, or send encrypted posts to alt.anonymous.messages. Does every community online have to be the same?