I think the case of Google+ demonstrates the need for selective disclosure capability in multi-property / multi-community services and especially in federated scenarios.

Google acting as the IDP for Google properties is using profiles in a generic way for many services. So in one service it may be appropriate to have 'real name' or other sensitive attributes. But in another service, what is the need? 

The fact that many multi-site service providers don't have selective disclosure is probably the largest reason many users are violating site policy and creating avatars/fake names in the first place!

Google is not unique here. This is a broadly adopted anti-pattern.

Phil

On 2011-08-02, at 11:15 AM, Nicholas Crown wrote:

And how does an anonymous online profile help the Ugandan facing a death penalty for homosexuality, or a person facing murder in the US for being gay?  Was it a post on Facebook that tipped the scale for them?  

The issue in Ugunda is one of an oppressive government regime.  The people there do need to fight for their freedom, or flee.  In the U.S. example, it's against the law to kill someone for their sexual orientation.  Having a social networking site that supports pseudonym's would not have prevented the deranged person from taking another's life. 

Nick

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Blakley,Bob <Bob.Blakley@gartner.com> wrote:
Nicholas,

Translation of your question:

Why can't people with unpopular views just stand up in public and be killed for them, or stay in the closet?

It's great to stand up for what you believe in in a nice safe affluent white suburb where everything is theoretical.  It's a lot different to come out of the closet in Uganda, where the government is trying to impose the death penalty for homosexuality.

And you don't have to go to Uganda; people are killed for being gay every year in most states of the USA.

And gay isn't the only thing that can get you killed – ask any Muslim you happen to meet.


-- bob

BOB BLAKLEY

Vice President & Distinguished Analyst, Gartner ITP Identity & Privacy


From: Nicholas Crown <nick@thecrowns.org>
Reply-To: Nicholas Crown <nick@thecrowns.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:09:30 -0400
To: "community@lists.idcommons.net" <community@lists.idcommons.net>, "community@kantarainitiative.org" <community@kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [community] Google+ "real" names and NSTIC

but that is a totally different problem then the one I am raising which is whether people with medical conditions they want to talk about with others and get support (share +1s) or a buddhist in Kansas (can share freely with other buddhists or seekers without their hyper conservative christian neighbors finding out) or having a feminist persona that is not linked to your work identity in the tech industry (and if it was you would find work had to come by in the valley) is free to use google+ not linked to a "real name".

Why can't people just be who they are and stand in their own shoes for what they believe in? Trying to be a buddhist behind closed doors in Kansas does no one any good. If you believe in feminist tenants, than stand up for those and speak your voice.  I understand that persecution could come in any one of these cases, but that is the beauty of taking a stand on the truth.  If your ideal is not worth sharing with your own ID, then it's not for you.  About the only one that I struggle with is the case where you have some medical condition you would like to discuss in a private setting.  Can that case not be solved with a private/closed group?  If it's too sensitive for that, then take it offline.

Nick

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Tony Rutkowski <trutkowski@netmagic.com> wrote:
"Rights to anonymity."  Surely you are joking.

In law, there is no such network based right.
In technology, there is no such capability.

Like Scott McNealy said rather publicly in
1995 - Privacy: get over it.

--tony



On 8/1/2011 5:38 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
(3) If you use crime prevention as the rationale for taking away users' rights to anonymity, then

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
   community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
   community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net

For all list information and functions, see:
   http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community


This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Gartner makes no warranty that this e-mail is error or virus free.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community