
Google outed me - Sanddancer
http://www.zdnet.com/google-outed-me-7000025416/
======
techsupporter
This is why the whole "real name" trend is insane to me. Who gets to decide
what my "real name" even is except for me? I have this problem on a MUCH more
limited scale in that I go by my middle name--a shortened version at that--and
have for almost all of my decades on this planet. However, for many services,
I'm not allowed to use anything except my "legal name." This is a name that, I
hasten to add, ought to include my middle name since it's ON MY BIRTH
CERTIFICATE, unlike the souls from the article who are using a different yet
still identifiable name for a very important reason. For some reason, "legal"
or "real" name only seems to mean "the first and last words from the 'name'
line on your identity document."

Names are not intended to be unique or, frankly, immutable. A nickname, full
name, shortened name, set of initials, or even a creative symbol can all stand
for the same person and it's nobody's business, especially for a free "social"
site, what relationship that string of letters has to that person.

(I would like to reiterate that I am not putting "oops, can't use my middle
name" on the same level as "holy cowbells, an intimate detail of my life was
just revealed to coworkers and potentially-hostile reporters without my
knowledge or consent." It's just a small point of overlap that gives me a tiny
bit of insight.)

~~~
emhart
I'm in the same boat. I actually didn't find out what my first name was until
I was in 2nd grade and I saw my birth certificate for the first time. My
parents named me "Mohandas" after Gandhi, but were concerned about that being
the name I went by, so not only did I always go by "Schuyler", my 2nd name,
but my 2nd, 3rd & last names were on every legal document I ever filed.

About 3 years ago an agent at the RMV in MA, while looking at my birth
certificate, which has all 4 names on it, decided that my license had to be
issued to Mohandas. I showed her everything I had, passport, taxes, etc. yet
she wouldn't relent and I couldn't figure out any way to protest it. At first
it didn't really matter, until I got a letter from my bank that my car
insurance was issued through, that I was Mohandas now, so far as they were
concerned.

Then, when I went to get a license in my new state, they also insisted, though
they were much more polite about it and raised the issue up to supervisors,
etc. In the end they sent me to get a current copy of my social security card,
which didn't have Mohandas written on it. When I arrived at the SSA...they
balked at the difference and issued me a new card with Mohandas in first, and
my 3rd name dropped completely. That sealed the deal at the DMV, so now my
social security number, my license, my bank statements, utilities, etc. are
all issued to "Mohandas" which isn't an identity I have any connection to.

Sorry for the rant, it's just been a frustrating, strange couple years as I've
watched my lifelong identity transform out of my control.

EDIT: Would also like to add that in the scope of the article and the very
real suffering this issue is causing an already embattled minority, my issue
is absolutely not comparable.

~~~
aestra
You do not have to go through this. You may change your name legally for any
reason as long as you are not trying to defraud anyone if you live in the US
or a common law country. Your name is someone that you choose to be known by.

Generally you just need to go to a judge and get a court order of your new
desired legal name, and prove that you aren't trying to evade taxes or defraud
anyone. Then you can bring that paperwork to the proper people.

Look up the process in your new state and get your documents reissued.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change)

EDIT: if you still want to keep Mohandas, maybe try keeping it as a second
name, or part of your first name. Like you can be "Schuyler Mohandas" as your
first name. Having two first names is common in some areas, such as the
American South.

~~~
emhart
Your edit is actually a great idea, and I know it seems simple, yet, in my
annoyance it genuinely hadn't occurred to me. Thanks so much for the reply!

------
Pxtl
I'd like to think that Google Plus/Hangouts/etc will go down as one of the
biggest bungles social networking, but thankfully we have things like Digg and
MySpace to point to for worse.

If any start-up or other smaller business had screwed up this badly, they
would be bankrupt. Google survives this only because it's not their main
revenue source.

I used to be a big Google fanboy, and I still buy Android stuff because it's
the biggest OSS platform in its space.

But Google has fallen. Not because they're spying on us, not because they're
"evil" or something, but because they _suck_ at the big moves. They're
scatterbrained and clumsy and they screw up incessantly. And then defend the
obviously-bad decisions as "user error" when their platform is obviously
inscrutable for users.

I just set up my wife with a fresh android phone and the process was
_miserable_. There were days of it asking her to register for Plus ("I thought
I already had a Plus account") or install some Maps support gadget ("I thought
I already had Maps") and tedious errors. It all worked out in the end, but it
was not a good user experience.

Google never planned to "out" this woman. That's the thing to remember. Google
never sat down and said "we want to expose every transperson". They just
screwed up. Because they suck. They ask repeatedly permission for dumb things
that don't need permission, and then they wander over and make clumsy,
grotesque changes without considering the consequences.

The whole "Social Layer" thing was a great idea, really. Google needed a
Disqus-like platform to integrate across all their services.

But they completely dropped the ball on implementation. It's too opinionated
about things it shouldn't be. If you're running a single site, you can be
opinionated and say "Real Names Please". If you're running a _framework_ you
need to let the users and page-owners set the agenda.

------
adnam
The worst part for me is Bill Simmons apology in Grantland[*]. With phrases
like "we definitely screwed up", "moving forward", "we appreciated the
dialogue", it reads more like a server-outage postmortem, rather than a somber
response to the death of a person.

Also, the article 2769 words too long, which is about 2700 too many.

[http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-
from-t...](http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-the-
editor/)

~~~
DangerousPie
One important fact that this apology made clear for me was that they were
never actually planning on outing her before her suicide:

"2\. You need to make it more clear within the piece that Caleb never, at any
point, threatened to out her as he was doing his reporting.

3\. You need to make it more clear that, before her death, you never
internally discussed the possibility of outing her (and we didn’t)."

If you read the original piece without this knowledge it sounds like they
wrote an article outing her, told her they would publish it and she then
killed herself. What actually seems to have happened is that they only wrote
the version of the article outing her after her death.

~~~
hrktb
Still, I don't get why this piece insists on their lack of intention to out
her in the published article, while admitting they outed her to an investor.

Feels like 'we dont want to tell the world about it, we just told it to some
public figure in your field'

------
SilkRoadie
Google have indexed the Internet. They have indexed public roads (Street
View). Both things are pretty useful. Pretty cool.

The issue now is they want to index people.. pretty creepy. This can be seen
with Google+ and the various inflexible policies it has towards Google
accounts. Is Google "person search" really that far off? Already you can email
anyone with a Google account right(?) How long before you put in a name and a
town and you get Google+, Facebook, Twitter profiles along with posts related
to that user from their public names and confirmed alias.

The only way to opt out is to destroy your Google account which is a shame as
gmail + docs are pretty awesome. I don't know how that would affect Android
for the day to day user.

~~~
blueskin_
Primarily only by not being able to use the play store, and having to disable
the 'Google Contacts Sync' to store numbers locally without having google
sniff them.

Make a gmail account, add no personal data, and use it only for the playstore,
and problem solved.

~~~
thaumasiotes
It's really pissing me off that in CM11 (Android 4.4?), when I go to add a
contact, the message is "your new contact will be synchronized with <google
account>". As far as I can tell, the option to store numbers locally has been
intentionally hidden (the only way I can think of to do it is create the
information on a different phone, export it to a contacts file, and transfer
the file...).

~~~
iam
Have you tried turning off Contacts synchronization in Settings > Accounts ?

~~~
thaumasiotes
Yep, but I still get the message.

~~~
iam
That sounds like it could be a bug, you should consider filing it on
[https://code.google.com/p/android](https://code.google.com/p/android)

------
sushirain
It is NOT true that I can avoid opening a Google Plus/Facebook account, and
thus protect my privacy.

Google/Facebook has been striving to integrate the public account with many
important services. Google/Facebook are a monopoly/very dominant in email,
social networks, navigation, smartphones, etc. Some online services already
require a Google/Facebook account. Your social media account determines your
credit score[1], or can get/deny you a job position. This is going to get more
widespread.

A social media account has become mandatory, and the law should step in to
protect our privacy and safety.

[1]
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230477310...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304773104579266423512930050)

~~~
mkesper
I would not betrust anybody with my money who forced me to have a
Google/Facebook/whatev account.

~~~
gcp
You can have your employer use Google services and consequently require you to
create a Google account.

~~~
aaronem
What's to stop you from creating a Google account specifically for that
purpose? Worked for me.

~~~
normloman
Yeah just make a Google+ account for work. And when Google asks for your real
name, and nobody at works knows you're transgender, what do you do? Put in
your legal name that's still set to your old gender? Put in your new name that
Google rejects because it doesn't match the name on your phone bill / credit
card / whatever. Put in a fake name and wait until your account gets deleted?

~~~
aaronem
> Put in your new name that Google rejects because it doesn't match the name
> on your phone bill / credit card / whatever.

This is the part that confuses me -- granted, my Google account for work has
my legal name on it, and I don't have to deal with a mismatch between that and
the name I go by. But I have several throwaway Google accounts, and have never
had my real name turn up on any of them. Is this purely because I don't
associate them with my phone number, and don't use them for e.g. purchases in
the Play Store or whatever? Are you saying that, if I did that with a
throwaway account, I'd suddenly find that it had ceased to be a throwaway, and
had my legal name and suchlike associated with it? Pardon my confusion -- it's
just that I'm astonished at the idea of Google, or indeed anyone, pulling a
trick like that. Is that actually what goes on?

------
johnchristopher
That article doesn't make any sense. I have to read each paragraphs two or
three times and take mental notes to deduce who's who and who's doing what to
who.

~~~
DangerousPie
The author's name definitely rings a bell. I can't recall the details, but I
am pretty sure she has been associated with quite a few articles like this on
HN in the past, most of which were horribly written and turned out to be
largely false or exaggerated. Does anybody still have a link for one of them?

~~~
TeMPOraL
I wish we'd have a way to store such instances somewhere and connect it to a
browser plugin or something, so that when one opens an article a message is
shown: "The author of an article has a history of exaggerating, writing
falsehood and outright lying. See [link] for details."

~~~
tragic
I suppose you could use this:
[https://plus.google.com/authorship](https://plus.google.com/authorship)

------
rmc
Some LGBT rights organisations rank companies by how LGB and/or T friendly the
organisation is to companies. Large tech companies often come out quite good.
These rankings should start including factors that affect the customers of the
company, which means Google would start losing rankings due to actions like
this.

~~~
sentenza
The rights organizations should award negative prizes to the worst-behaving
companies and organizations, bundled at a well-publicizable awards event. This
generates bad press on those companies, which in turn might do some good.

I see some candidates for such awards right there in the article.

------
hartator
Vic Gundotra.

Please, get this guy fired. G+ is the biggest failure of Google. It has
destroyed gmail chat with hangouts. Youtube with stupid G+ comment
integration. It's slow, privacy unfriendly (to say the least, this present
article is sadly crazy!), technically weak and socially awkward. They even
fuck up the search, even the search!, with a strong bias on G+ "likes" and G+
authorship.

The Internet needs blood... now.

~~~
myko
> It has destroyed gmail chat with hangouts. Youtube with stupid G+ comment
> integration.

These are pretty much huge improvements over the previous implementations
though?

>They even fuck up the search, even the search!

I've personally found this useful on many occasions. True, I wish they could
integrate with Twitter like they did before, but that's going to take
coordination with Twitter. What would you improve regarding search/G+?

------
blueskin_
I'm starting to get seriously scared about Android 4.4 whenever it becomes
more widespread.

I use CyanogenMod, who should strip out some of the worst intrusions, but I
guess with 4.4, I'll need a replacement dialer and SMS as I don't let Hangouts
get anywhere near my phone, and the dialer will be sending numbers I call /
get called by to google. I've looked at Handcent for SMS, but are there any
privacy-focused dialer replacements?

~~~
ritikk
Please don't buy into the FUD, there is plenty on control and notice about
identity in hangouts:
[https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/3441321?hl=en](https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/3441321?hl=en)

[http://www.groovypost.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/Hangout...](http://www.groovypost.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/Hangouts-SMS-turn-on.png)

~~~
blueskin_
It's still not going onto my phone. Merging google+ into SMS is a bad idea,
and dangerous to privacy no matter what options there are today that will
likely disappear later. Google have consistently proven themselves hostile to
privacy and user choice.

I think if there's anything I'm not buying into, it's a new account which
seems to only exist to promote Hangouts / google+.

~~~
FireBeyond
I'm curious (not necessarily in relation to you specifically) what people's
thoughts have been in a similar vein about iMessage vs SMS.

------
tdicola
I'd love to know what benefits the real name system has been providing users.
It seems like it's causing more outrage and problems (i.e. recent Youtube
comment redesign) than actual good.

~~~
blueskin_
It lets google scrape more data to profit from.

Oh, you meant benefit to users? None. They're the product as far as google is
concerned.

------
tomp
> And, seems to me, we still have this (white) male dominated journalism
> elite, with their myopic, pseudo-macho ideas of what truth and the pursuit
> of it means.

What a nice way to plug in some generalizing, offensive, misandric comments.

~~~
tone
Yeah things like that are a good way to immediately discredit any other
content you had, regardless of its legitimacy.

I also read the word "triggering". A term I can never seem to figure out in
it's context. It seems some people believe they (at least ought to) exist in
some Utopian society where everyone should know what may upset everyone else
(even in the slightest way) and endeavour to avoid at all costs. I mean it's
maybe a nice concept on the whole, but the over intricate levels these people
take it to are ridiculous.

The whole article smacks of entitlement. Simplifying a name, or even a gender
is not a personal attack or an attempt at discrimination, it's just in truth a
simple system. If you use ten names and five genders, then why the hell should
things like this cater to you? Not specifically to ignore you, but if everyone
has these over indulgent massively personal requirements then all cannot be
fulfilled.

I'm sure there are people in the same situation that haven't had this problem,
so how it isn't user error is beyond me. It's a free service...

~~~
normloman
We can't walk on eggshells all day because anything we say could trigger
someone's traumatic memory. But use some common sense. If you're gonna talk
about rape, murder, suicide, and your audience may not expect it, ... maybe
give people a warning.

Also - entitlement schmitlement. Expecting a company to handle your personal
information discretely is a reasonable expectation. When Google acted
recklessly with peoples private information, they violated their users trust.

------
jdsnape
I was surprised by the tweet saying she was glad she lived in a state where it
was illegal to fire her...does this imply there are states where it would be
legal to fire someone who was transgender?

~~~
blueskin_
In a significant part of the US, you can fire people with no notice, with no
recourse, for any/no reason.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-
will_employment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)

~~~
gadders
Which is why unemployment is lower than in Europe.

~~~
blueskin_
Europe isn't a country. It's a region with both strong and weak economies. A
regional average of unemployment rates is invalid and useless for any
meaningful statistics.

US: 7.3%

Strong economies in europe:

UK: 7.5%

Germany: 5.2%

Denmark: 6.7%

Norway: 3.1%

Weak economies in europe:

Greece 27.3%

Spain 26.7%

Italy: 12.5%

You can't average countries with completely different governments and
economies to produce a regional figure, just like an average of the US' and
Mexico's (4.25%) would be equally meaningless.

~~~
chongli
I'm not even sure these numbers are comparable. Who is gathering and reporting
the statistics? Are they all using the exact same criteria and methodology?
Unemployment is one of the most politically-charged statistics you can find.
I'd be shocked if all these countries reported it accurately.

~~~
protomyth
They are not comparable, nor is the current rate in the US with historic data
since the definitions have changed multiple times. It is very much the same
with comparing infant mortality since several EU countries count it very
differently than the US.

------
eXpl0it3r
It's always easy to blame someone else, especially if that "someone" is
already being hated on by a lot of people.

Google only knows as much information as you give them [edit: is publicly
available or can be bought from someone else]. Using a mobile OS that
integrates many services from Google, without doing proper research on what
these services are allowed to actually do and then blaming Google for using
the data, you agreed to let them use, is just wrong.

People just started to forget: Everything comes with a price. Whether it's
money, viewing ads or providing personal information, in the end a product is
never truly free.

~~~
gcp
_Google only knows as much information as you give them_

Google also knows all the information _anyone else_ gave them.

~~~
girvo
Yes, but that cat is well and truly out of that bag, so (for me, personally)
it's time to take as many precautions as I can. One of those is being very
careful around Google services. I've since replaced my use of all of them
(thank you ownCloud, and DAV!). I've got far fewer consequences to worry about
than other people, but for me the trade off is worth it.

------
abvdasker
While it's obviously very unfortunate that all this happened, this is not the
full story. The words, "Hannan told her he was going to break the agreement
not to write about her personal life and reveal her transgender status without
her consent," are a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened.

Also, it's a lot of misdirected anger. The reporter's job is to get the story
— and in this case Hannan's editors admit they pushed him to do so.

[http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-
from-t...](http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-the-
editor/)

~~~
__pThrow
It's hard to defend grantland after they wrote a 2900 word apology, but Dr. V

\+ wasn't a doctor \+ claimed her putter worked on "magical" physics but it
didn't \+ claimed she was an MIT professor who invented bluetooth and worked
on the B2 and had top secret classifications \+ claimed she was a Vanderbilt
\+ claimed because she was a Vanderbilt she has special relationships with
Hilton \+ claimed her special relationships with Hilton could be used to get
access to Hilton golf courses and Hilton customers

And had at least one investor who said he lost $60,000 of his money

I think this amounts to fraud. I think that changes the story from "marvelous
putter" to con artists defrauding investors and consumers. I think that when
you commit crimes and especially the crime of fraud it becomes very germane
what your history is because you may have defrauded other people in the past.

I think no matter who you are if you have a secret you don't want out the best
advice is not to commit crimes.

I don't know where in the priority for the local DA or the SEC defrauding an
investor of $60,000 is, but it seems to have been ignored by everyone eager to
take offense at how this article was written.

------
dijit
Sorry, why didn't they change their name on google, just like the bank,
council tax documents and such.

this information could have been easily gleaned when logged in to google, it's
not necessarily googles fault if you provide them false or stale information
and fail to change it.

~~~
quarterto
FTFA:

    
    
      I don't remember actually giving this detail to Google, nor can I find anywhere within the settings where anything other than "Nora" is listed

~~~
ig1
There seems to be an implication that Google somehow obtained this information
and added it to her account automatically, while this might be technically
feasible I'm not aware of any actual claim that this is the case.

Much more likely is that the user entered her real name when she signed up
initially and just forgot about it (how many people here can recall what
details they gave to MySpace or Yahoo a decade ago?)

~~~
darklajid
That's still missing the point. Even IF the user gave that information
voluntarily in the past (she claims she didn't and we should believe her by
default in my world, out of courtesy and respect) - the quote continues and
says that there wasn't a setting to be found that referred to the
wrong/unwanted name.

IF that name was given previously the user still needs to have final say about
her appearance online, her very own account data. Saying "You probably gave it
out earlier and yeah, maybe there's no way to remove it from the history of
your account" wouldn't make Google look better in any way.

~~~
ig1
No she doesn't. The exact quote is "I don't remember" which is completely
different from "I didn't". That's the danger of implication, it makes you
think one thing is meant while another is actually said.

~~~
Anderkent
Uh, no, "I don't remember doing X" and "I didn't do X" mean exactly the same
thing. The first one is just more explicit.

~~~
aeorgnoieang
No, they don't mean the same thing, even approximately.

------
nemof
a deep lack of understanding and empathy from some here. whether or not
someone fucks up because they fail to understand how a service works shouldn't
result in them getting outed in a way that can be deeply damaging to them. The
lack of care and foresight that google are showing is reprehensible.

~~~
leoedin
How does Google know what information would be deeply damaging to them?
Perhaps it's obvious in this case, but everyone has different secrets. Short
of not sharing any information at all about anyone, there will always be the
potential for damaging information to be shared.

I'm no fan of Google's creeping profile integration, but to say:

> Whether or not someone fucks up because they fail to understand how a
> service works shouldn't result in them getting outed in a way that can be
> deeply damaging to them.

is ludicrous. If I don't understand how my Facebook status update works and
type damaging secrets into that, is that Facebook's fault? Eventually there
has to be some level of user responsibility to not share information that will
be damaging to them.

~~~
yaddayadda
"Short of not sharing any information at all about anyone..." Agreed! And
online services, like Google and Facebook, should NOT be sharing ANY
information with ANYONE without EXPLICIT permission from the person who's
information it is.

I may want to share a photo of a me at a party with a sub-set of my friends,
that doesn't mean that I want that photo to be available to my mother or to a
potential employee 50 years from now. When G+ started they introduced
'circles' which encapsulates this concept, and I was happy.

Since google combined all google services under single user name -without
giving users a choice in the matter- they lost my support. With the exception
of gmail, I've stopped using google services; and as soon as I find an
alternative to gmail that meets my needs I'm dropping that. And I haven't used
facebook in many years, for the same privacy control reasons.

~~~
leoedin
Anyone even vaguely knowledgeable about technology knows what these company's
business models are. They involve targeting adverts at you based on the
information (directly supplied or assumed) that they have on you. In Google's
case it's been this way for over a decade. This isn't news.

If you have information which is likely to damage you significantly, don't
share it on the platforms they provide. Encrypt it. I can't be the only one
who's accidentally shared things as public on Facebook. Assume that something
you share via these sites (rather than send via a single receipiant message or
similar) is semi-public, because history has shown that it often is.

~~~
yaddayadda
There's a big difference between (a) doing text or image analysis to find out
what I drink and then providing _advertisements_ to _me_ for that drink and
(b) telling _anyone I have ever, in any way, digitally interacted with_ what I
drink!

I have no problem with the first (and in fact prefer it to untargeted ads) and
a huge, massive, deal-breaking problem with the second.

I don't disagree that people are responsible _to a degree_ for their own data
security. But this case highlights that there is a limit to an individuals
_ability_ to maintain their own data security. This woman intentionally shared
one name with people associated with one account. If the allegation is true,
google then shared a different name with people on that account.

Saying this woman is responsible is like saying I'm personally responsible for
my credit card information being leaked by Target. Yes, I used a credit card
at Target. Once Target has my information, they should be held accountable for
their security and handling of that information. In the same way Google should
be held accountable for their security and handling of this woman's
information.

------
Mikeb85
The Google bashing is getting old. This is yet more evidence that you should
be aware of how one service will use the information you give it, and that you
should be careful with what information you enter on the internet, no matter
what...

~~~
chilldream
Yeah, you really should have considered what Google would put on their social
network when you signed up for an email account a decade ago before "social
network" was even a thing.

~~~
FireBeyond
What a baseless statement.

Gmail started April 2004.

Facebook started February 2004.

At which time Myspace was a year old.

Let's not be disingenuous and throw around nonsensical claims like "when you
signed up for an email account a decade before "social network" was even a
thing"...

~~~
chilldream
-You're parsing that sentence wrong; note the word "ago".

-"social network" is in quotes because while the social networks themselves have been around for awhile, they only became a buzzword and the kind of thing Google would try to clumsily emulate in recent years.

------
raverbashing
Can't we disable G+

Can't we force Google to disable G+? For example, Google has been know to be
trigger happy and thinking art works were porn. Or just put an obviously fake
name on G+ and let it fall on the "Real Name policy"

Or just quit Google altogether, there. Maybe create then a new account on
Google with a fake name.

~~~
darklajid
Yes, you can disable G+ (on Android, at least). GTalk/Hangouts can be used
with a standard XMPP client - at least somewhat usable and For Now™.

Plus, if you're into CM (as the outed woman was, ironically) you'll get the
recommendation to use TextSecure for SMS messages, not Hangout.

I have all these apps/services (Hangout, G+, Google Music, Google Books and
probably a bit more) disabled on my phone, so it is definitely doable. I am
not sure if it is reasonable and I don't think it should be required to avoid
this .. crap.

------
Nanzikambe
I think many posters here are missing the real problem here, Google is taking
liberties with (y)our personal data.

Hiding behind the excuse that you could opt out, or that informational leakage
is a user problem is disingenuous and can be illustrated by the simple analogy
to a telephone directory:

If your telephone directory suddenly arbitrarily decided to indicate beside a
listing (a listing you may not have requested) your sexual orientation,
gender, criminal history or political affiliation. Would that be ok?

I think the answer is a clear and resounding "no!", and the underlying issue
one that Google must address immediately and definitively. I've been migrating
away from Google for the past six months or so, but this has now pushed that
to the top of my priorities.

So much for "do no evil"

------
pstack
I think everyone on the internet should be forced to use their real identity,
except for _me_ , because _I_ have a completely legitimate reason for wanting
privacy and anonymity!

------
stesch
See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7012832](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7012832)

The original link was filtered/blocked on Hacker News. 19 days ago. :-(

------
linux_devil
In contrast with tag line : "Don't be evil"

~~~
troels
It doesn't seem like this was intentional in any way. I don't think that
counts as being "evil".

~~~
saalweachter
"Don't be careless?"

~~~
thrown7779
"Don't underestimate the ability of some segment of the population to be
offended by something you do. Whatever you do, you'll offend someone."

Being offended is an epidemic...

~~~
xenophanes
They seriously hurt a lot of people in a very predictable and avoidable way,
and are not interested in fixing the harm they've done. And you're
whitewashing it without giving any substantive answer to the points in the
linked article.

~~~
thrown7779
If you don't want to be "outed" by google, why give google the information
needed to do that?

Is creating 2 separate google accounts impossible these days?

~~~
dredmorbius
I _had_ two separate accounts. Google merged them despite my telling them not
to.

Seems to me HN covered this:

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/VZSLjkdq...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/VZSLjkdqksG)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6745525](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6745525)

[http://i.imgur.com/YgEjUuI.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/YgEjUuI.jpg)

Google's proven it _cannot_ be trusted to respect user choice, nor to not
arbitrarily change the rules at a later date.

------
antidaily
I though the Grantland writer outed her to an investor. Sure, Google aided in
that, but that was the whole issue.

------
omegaworks
Does anyone know of any guidelines for creating software that is trans-
inclusive?

------
ritikk
To pause the Google-hate, and the same G+ identity talk for just one second
I'd like to point out that the details in that post are _not accurate_.

First and most important - the linchpin to that whole post is wrong:

 _Google 's response was that her outing was "user error" \- Google blamed
her, the user for not understanding the new, confusing integration._

That statement is untrue, the author is citing a previous reporting that never
received any statement from Google:
[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/07/google-
han...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/07/google-hangouts-
faces-criticism-after-outing-trans-woman)

Nonetheless the incident itself was self-inflicted:

The trans woman in question flashed a ROM which skipped the usual disclaimer
and notice about which identity will be used:
[https://twitter.com/eiridescent/status/419604310213672960](https://twitter.com/eiridescent/status/419604310213672960)

Also it's very unfair to cavalierly invoke that Grantland tragedy and to
choose that very provocative title to drive page views.

~~~
corresation
This article is riding the anti-Google+ bandwagon, as you mentioned exploiting
a very complex, highly nuanced tragedy to try to bolster page views. It's just
as unfortunate to blame complex societal issues (like the acceptance of
transgenders, criminal backgrounds, educational history, etc.) on a technology
or software product, as if Google Hangouts carefully considered the
ramifications of a male versus female name and decided to "out" the user
maliciously.

Cue the sardonic "don't be evil" scare-quotes that inevitably appear.

Though I don't know if I'd go as far as blaming the user -- it _is_ possible
the system had two or more identifiers and confused them. Indeed, the core
purpose of Google+ is as a simple aggregation of disparate identity systems
across Google's properties and apps, so such conflicts are a virtual
inevitability. Hangouts was upgraded, to much cheering, specifically to
aggregate SMS and IM functionality, so if you were living a different life on
both things might get complicated.

It's extremely hard to hide or change the past. It was hard before the
internet, and has become effectively impossible now. It is almost irrational
to expect to transition to a new life and an entire legacy of breadcrumbs will
disappear, especially while trying to hold onto some parts of that prior life.

~~~
Thrymr
> Cue the sardonic "don't be evil" scare-quotes that inevitably appear.

Those aren't scare quotes. That is quoting an actual full heading from one of
their founding documents [1]:

 _" Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be
better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does
good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an
important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company."_

as well as their internal code of conduct [2].

[1] [http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-
lette...](http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html)

[2] [http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-
conduct.html](http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html)

~~~
corresation
A scare quote isn't a manufactured quote, but instead is taking something
someone (or some thing like a corporation) said and making one's
skepticism/doubt readily apparent.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes)

------
fuckpig
I was very much into this article until the end, when they started blaming
white males for all their problems.

