At some point Google is going to be investigated for this. Like MS, they'll probably get away with this in the US because Google is US based and they let businesses get away with anything, but the EU will hammer them.
Even if you were forced to use Google+, un-circling someone doesn't generate a notification, so there's no reason to worry about creating a relationship you can't revoke.
In other words, if you have person B in your circles, you can hide whether person C (or the general public) can find out that person B is in your circles. You can't prevent person B from knowing that they are in your circles (thought they won't know which circles they are in).
I'm pretty sure this is the model. I can confirm it if you'd like.
Knowing this beforehand I would have made a new email address to manage the account, and could freely allow circling. I guess I'll go find out now if I can change the owner of the page.
Google is turning into a social company and so it needs their users to set up a social network profile.
You can easily choose another email service if you don't like it. This only applies to new users so there's really no lock-in since none of your data are at Google yet.
And honestly I don't think the G+ users will want their Facebook friends to be on G+, same way that most users on Youtube have separate accounts from their Google/Gmail account. From the looks of this, G+ will just push away users from other Google services, and causing confusion.
The war is on between Twitter, Facebook, and Google and it has nothing to do with the number of messages or advertisements that can be served. It's the number of end user identities that can be authenticated.
In Google's case, it's highly doubtful that they will ever dominate social. The barriers to entry for the online world are way too low.
Yes, I was but I don't blame MS for that. There were no competent alternatives during the mid 90s. Apple was on the verge of going out of business and Linux wasn't ready for the average user yet. I don't blame Google either for dominating search. They (MS & Google) are or were the best at what they do. The problem arises when companies leverage a monopoly to enter another business.
>In Google's case, it's highly doubtful that they will ever dominate social.
With this news it is far more likely that they will (when this is about the number of users) if a user's only intent is to create a YouTube or Gmail account and have to accept all three.
Linux was gaining popularity, but it was difficult to install and use. It lacked the quality desktop apps that are available today. It lacked a coherent and usable desktop. I think it was around 1998 or '99 that I installed RedHat 5.2. It came with fvmw2 or something. It was hideous, and that was only after I spent hours trying to configure X in the first place. There was no free MS Office-compatible word processor. StarOffice came out around then, but it was commercial and pretty lousy. It was years later that there was decent office software that was compatible with the rest of the world. Netscape 4 was pretty much the only game in town for web browsing. Fonts looked like total crap. Oh, and that's if you could even get your modem to work in the first place. Winmodems were everywhere. I went out and bought an external 56k modem for like $75 and spent weeks getting it to work. I could go on, but I really don't like thinking about the bad old days.
Basically, you were stuck with Microsoft back then. They may have only lost %5 market share or some small number, but there are very good alternatives available. Market share hardly matters at this point for end users. Whether you choose MS, Mac or Linux you can expect wide support.
It's a very different landscape for end users, as well as Microsoft.
It's funny how people keep getting "shocked and surprised" by obvious moves, what use is it having a profile or a cohesive identity system for all your services if you don't incorporate it into said services or even use it when users sign up?!
I could host my own email on my VPS, but going through the trouble of that - it seems to make sense to just go ahead and host on a box I fully control.
To this point I admit I have had no issues with gmail or Google apps, both of which I use. But the landscape seems to be changing and I'm curious if anyone is considering migrating to their own hardware and what tools, etc. they are employing to make that process easily manageable as well as effective. I use email for sensitive business discussions, but the security required is tempered by the obvious fact that if the email doesn't get there, it's less than worthless.
I do have PGP setup, and I thought that this would be a good tradeoff while using a third party provider - but it is nearly impossible to keep partners and clients active in using it, if they use it at all.
The concept of the Freedombox (freedomboxfoundation.org) seems interesting, but academic at this point.
Anyone running their personal email servers care to comment on the overhead? Would a simple Postfix, Dovecot, Roundcube install with Spamassassin suffice? What are the pitfalls? Not worth the tradeoff of using Google Apps?
I'm thinking about keeping my websites on a VPS and using a MX record to point to a private, dedicated email server I keep in my house or other private property. Anyone running a similar setup?
I run a mail server on my Linode and have never had trouble sending mail. It's easy to see if you're on a blacklist and take corrective action, though I've never had to do this.
I recently switched from Postfix to Exim4 and like it a lot more. The spam checking is much better integrated and lets you reject messages at DATA time with full spam information, so real messages that are auto-rejected at least bounce with an informative message.
Finally, if you don't like delayed mail, get a backup MX. It's very easy to set up for your friends that run their own primary MX, and you can return the favor. (I buy a backup MX service, but run backup MX for people that have asked.)
I do have Exim4 setup on a Linode for outgoing status updates (mainly Fail2Ban), but have yet to use it in lieu of Gmail/Google Apps.
As mentioned previously I'm a bit nervous about leaving my mail on a third party box - though Linode has been nothing but a reliable service to date.
If you're worried for backup reasons, just sync with offlineimap. I do this to have a faster local cache (since I consider Linode more reliable than my desktop computer). (Even gmail is fine if you back it up.)
I can't speak for Google, of course, but my own take is that privacy is taken very seriously internally. Perhaps more seriously than anything else, actually. Google is generally open with employees with respect to source code, financial data, and access controls, they are not that way with user data. I don't have access to it, and couldn't get access to it unless it's vital to the success of my project (and then, only for a limited time period).
I even have a sticker with the 5 privacy principles stuck to my monitor's base.
That user data is company property and its secrecy is what gives it value. Furthermore, if users caught wind of just how much of it exists that could jeopardize its source.
Here's the relevant section:
Just to pick one example, where does it say what you do with the data you collect on users when they click a link from YouTube. E.g., the page http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy has a link that displays on the page as
Companies that do only one thing well are often a better bet than companies that do many things at whatever level of quality (and while I don't advertise, I do perceive the quality of Google's search "product" dropping due to things like removing + from term modifiers).
So basically, it's pretty rare that you would lose your email. It's happened before, but everything was restored from tape. I run my own email server for fun, but I'd be lying if I said that I did it better than Google.
I don't worry about that level of quality and have e.g. used Google Docs for some very important things, I worry about the Product Manage level of quality. No in the trenches Google programmer up and decided to remove "+" as a search term (and were mulit-word double quoted phrases previously mandatory search terms?).
There's also the political problems that come with size and scope. Google is in the cross-hairs of many governments, and looking at history you can't say it's impossible that ugly things won't happen, e.g. a split that would put Gmail in a less capable smaller company.
Compounding that, to a degree uncommon in the industry, Google has made an all in bet on the Democratic Party and Blue State values. That strikes me as ... unwise in county that for many years has self-identified to Gallup as being 40% "Conservative", 40% "Independent" and 20% "Liberal".
To be fair, I'm not a normal case, I started creating and querying full text retrieval systems for customers and myself in 1991 when I started my half-decade of document imaging work.
But I did use +, e.g. I'd do a query and get too many or the wrong results because one term wasn't being weighed well and then I'd add a + in front of it. Changing that to wrapping it in double quotes would be only an annoyance if the change wasn't entirely gratuitous (as I understand it) to the Google search function.
And, yeah, the segmentation algorithm is very good, although I haven't torture tested it ^_^.
(Side notes: LinkedIn is the only "social network" I'm likely to use in the foreseeable future, Facebook is anathema (they seem to have inverted your "don't be evil" motto) and Google+ is way too dangerous to use because being kicked off it kills the rest of your Google accounts.)
Where did you saw that? According to Horowitz (one of their VPs), it doesn't:
When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name
standards, access to Gmail or other products that don’t require a Google+
profile are not removed,
The more Google intertwingles their services the more cascading policy "failures" can put you in a world of hurt. Hence my one company, one service policy. In the case of Google (ignoring membership in some Google Groups, but to a non-Google address) it's Google Docs. (I'm not counting the non-sticky ones like search and Maps.)
There is a trusted type of relationship between your MTA and the smart relay so the smart relay is not set up as an open relay. If your smart relay is an open relay, it may end up on blacklists as well, for different reasons than originating from a residential IP block.
I've been happy with using google apps for my email server and have had no trouble staying in the free tier. It's clearly not for everyone, but it sounds like it will involve far fewer headaches for you than managing your own server.
I agree that Google Apps is the best of the bunch, and much easier to manage than your own server - but the privacy concerns have just nagged at me for years. I keep getting back to the core issue: is giving this (or any) company the sum of all my written communications in exchange for ease of use worth it? It's something I'm still struggling with.
Still, I won't be surprised if demand starts rising for other free anonymous mail services. Google's UI presents a nice barrier to entry, though (of course, others exist but none are as popular right now).
These all redirect to the same mailbox on gmail
Correct me if I misunderstood, but I believe you can just use the old gmail sign up url http://mail.google.com/mail/signup
As mentioned in the article, you can also still use the old google account sign up to url https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount .
Since using a non "real name" only disables the G+ part of the Google account, you are still able to create a semi anonymous gmail.
On the other hand, being able to sign up with an arbitrary email address has always lead to issues once/if you switch to Google Apps and intend to share local parts.
Google has no obligation to provide G+/GMail-less accounts and I'm sure there is a lot of technical and business reasons for coupling them. As it's their service, that's what we get.
Of course, it's their company they can do whatever they want. That doesn't mean we can't judge them.
Who are the rising stars in general-purpose web search?
I don't like the trend were they are going, but you're comparing apples and oranges here.
Diaspora is small now, but the motivation to use it will only keep growing.
(Google is also very very serious about protecting your data. Don't let Facebook's lax privacy let you think Google does the same thing. The only entity you have to fear is the government, and that's true of any internet service provider.)
Not wholly sure what the outcome of the above was, but you could also fear google's employees if you were so inclined. Or anyone that had undue/inappropriate access to/sway with google's employees. They are only many thousands of humans after all.
Did you actually read the complete article?
"We dismissed David Barksdale for breaking Google's strict internal privacy policies. We carefully control the number of employees who have access to our systems, and we regularly upgrade our security controls–for example, we are significantly increasing the amount of time we spend auditing our logs to ensure those controls are effective. That said, a limited number of people will always need to access these systems if we are to operate them properly–which is why we take any breach so seriously."
I can tell you that privacy is taken very seriously within the company and that access to PII (Personally Identifiable Information) is quite restricted and access to it is logged and monitored.
Should have elaborated: I'm not sure if a civil/criminal proceeding arose out of the case above.
The answer is right in the blurb that I posted:
"...for example, we are significantly increasing the amount of time we spend auditing our logs to ensure those controls are effective..."
In other words, this incident pointed out a weakness in the system and it is being addressed. From personal experience I can tell you that it is - in fact - being addressed and more controls and monitoring have been rolled out and more are being rolled out. I don't feel comfortable going into details, but from the perspective of a working engineer I have both had conversations about this with senior VPs and have had to do work to comply with the new controls (and have more work planned in the upcoming quarter to be compatible with upcoming controls that are even stronger).
When I register as a new user on Facebook or Google+, it is constantly trying to engage me, trying to somehow connect me with new people. If I log in to JoinDiaspora, I just stare at empty screen and my two inactive Diaspora friends, which is exactly what I saw 1 year ago when I tried it the first time. There are no user groups, no way to actually DO ANYTHING on the site.
The fact that the main joindiaspora hub it's still invite-based doesn't help things.
Edit: Oh, I just realized I can search for tags on joindiaspora. Only that it does take about 30 seconds for the results to really start showing; first, I see just empty screen.
I realize that making social network is hard, but diaspora to me still looks like very early alpha.
Diaspora is a non-starter. Have you ever even tried to explain it to a non-technical user? Their eyes glaze over with disinterest.
It's to complicated, and no clear benefits other than the rather abstract benefit of de-centralized control.
Fortunately I was able to delete the gmail account to reverse this, but it was relatively difficult to find the "turn off gmail" button. And if all new accounts get gmail, they may stop letting you turn off gmail at all.
Have you done a search for "Facebook" on Google recently? Notice the gigantic ad for Google+ on the right?
If that isn't anti-competitive, I don't know what is. If I had a competing service, I couldn't advertise for "facebook" on Google, but Google can stick a gigantic ad for their competing service there?
My guess is it's going away for everyone, but I guess that's speculation.
If they don't care about it and just want to pump up their signup numbers, heck just make every google.com visitor a G+ member automatically. Oh wait, they are beginning to do just that...
You don't usually see websites boasting that their processes used to be simpler.