Bye Bye Google Plus

[tweetmeme source=”franscomputerservices” only_single=false]Some of you may have noticed I have removed my Google Plus account today. Others may think good riddance to another person who doesn’t get it.

But nothing could be further from the truth. I was one of Google’s real endorsers. But no more. Their real name policy has turned away many real people and that was never Google’s way before. So why now?

I have to say i loved Google. I generally don’t trust corporations online or off, but Google was one I thought and even through all this i really hoped they would turn this around and once again try to ‘do no evil’.

I guess the old saying is true — especially for corporations — Everyone has their price; even Google.

Sigh…

NOTE: see my last posting entitled A wave out to all my Google+ friends.

Advertisements

A wave out to all my Google+ friends

[tweetmeme source=”franscomputerservices” only_single=false]And other Google+ users who might soon be wondering where I went…

EDIT 9/6/2011: In the comments, I continue to add articles. I hope to have this be a pretty inclusive list of articles on this issue. If you know of one I have missed please feel free to leave a comment with the link. Thanks!

I have found that as much as I absolutely love Google+ the ‘social network’ — now known to be an ‘identity service’, I am leaving on 9/9 along with some others that have identified 9/9 as the day to leave. Hopefully it will have some impact even if it’s only a small overall number of users. But more than anything, I hope it will have a lasting impression regardless on how dangerous ‘identity services’ appearing to be ‘social networks’ can be.

Google has determined that Google+ aka Google Plus or G+ is to be an ‘identity service’ and that Google/Google+ require your real/common name not a pseudonym, pen name, stage name but only western style two name real/common names apparently.

Some may say so what. But others will know that this is a major issue and has been since Facebook started this trend. Here‘s my Google+ posting on this and this one reshared from Tom Anderson both which will be gone after 9/9.

Not to mention the fact that Google+ is linked to things like your GMail account, Google Search, Picasa, Youtube, Google maps/location data, Android apps purchases, and so much more — and even more of Google’s offerings as time goes on (and boy do they have a lot of social types of offerings or apps). And if you don’t like that and decide to leave G+, you are prompted to remove all, what they call connections to their ‘social apps’ linked to your G+ GMail account.

“Just go somewhere else” is a fallacy. The name policy stretches far beyond Google+, and here’s why. (Todd Vierling on Google+)

Here’s just a couple early articles the weekend when Google started arbitrarily disabling accounts:

Google+ and the loss of online anonymity by Matthew Ingram (GigaOm)

Update: Complaints mount over Google+ account deletions by Juan Carlos Perez (Computerworld)

Dutch researcher downloads 35 million Google Profiles (State of Search)

So what’s the big deal? First, it’s a great security risk for users. Especially normal/average users since many business users already have their ‘real’ name out there and it’s part of their branding. I actually am one who has done just that. Fran Parker is Fran’s Computer Services and this posting is on my Fran’s Computer Services blog. And technically Fran Parker is a common variation on my real name, but that is ‘allowable’ on G+ because it is how I am commonly known. Also, there is some arbitrariness about it all too. If disabled users can ‘prove’ who they are, or can ‘prove’ that they have a ‘valid’ reason for allowing the ‘pseudonym’ to those at Google/G+ who handle complaints or vetting of those who want to try to get reinstated, you can be back in their good graces.

However I am leaving Google+ — and don’t get me wrong — it would certainly benefit me to stay on G+ and let their new service benefit my business networking online. Instead, I am leaving Google+.

My name is Clo | My Name Is Me

My name is Albatross | My Name Is Me

Why? I am leaving because Google has decided to build G+ as an identity service — in some ways like Facebook, but not really since G+ is a public profile server — yes, you can hide nearly everything but your public posts or responses to public posts, your +1 (think: Facebook Like), AND you can’t hide your real/common name because they make that public — and Google has changed the rules on their services so they can now link you, by name, and even by what you put in the field for ‘also known as’, or ‘nicknames’ field, on every one of their services and boy do they have a lot of services. And if you don’t believe me, try this. Especially if you are a member of Google+, search on your name, particularly your Google+ profile name.

Will cyberthugs exploit Google Plus ‘identity service’ for spear phishing attacks? by Darlene Storm (Computerworld)

What’s the big deal, you say? Oh, nothing much accept that by doing this, they have made each and every one of us a bigger phishing, actually more like spear phishing, and/or unethical hacking/cracking target by linking everything we do or say online. For business users whose names are linked to their branding, they live with that day in and day out and it’s a major pain, but they made that decision to deal with that consciously at some point. But the average user? I don’t think the average or normal user needs or wants those types of hassles. OK, so maybe you say, So what? It’s a greater security risk for users. You can be targeted so much easier by linking so much about yourself online. And there is this to think about:

Google fined in Brazil for refusing to reveal bloggers’ identities (TheNextWeb)

OK, and if that wasn’t bad enough. By limiting the ability to use pseudonyms, stage names, pen names, non-English Western civilization name standards, etc., Google is cutting of their nose to spite their face. And some folks have been known by nothing else but a pseudonym, pen name or stage name online for as much as 20+ years, by the way. But that’s OK, they don’t really want to be everyone’s Google+ friend, they obviously just want to make more money.

Why do I say that? Because all of this linking is data they can market with, sell to others in corporations, governments, highest bidder, whatever — in aggregate form of course, like Facebook does. Facebook makes a bundle on this already and Google apparently wants a piece of that action…well a bigger piece. Besides they already know you. Now they are getting your permission to basically track you further, and use more of your data that you share with them….errr, enter on their services, like Google+.

Also, but many of us have been working against abuse of marketing crap since Steve Gibson created OptOut when he became aware of the crap that was going on in the early days of computing online on the Internet. Marketing which was more like spyware than benign advertising in the newspapers or magazines where they can’t track you!

OK, enough about that side of things. Now on to the other side. The discrimination, the arbitrary decisions to disable accounts and require proof of who they are or the changing of their ‘name’ to something more western or 1st world or whatever you want to call it … two name (first and last name) like western countries do. Which is not at all like real/common names in other parts of the world.

Also, some folks really do need to use a pseudonym, or alternative name, stage name, pen name …whatever you want to call it. And many people in this type of situation would rightfully feel this is a discrimination against women. Many women have been stalked, have had abusive spouses or coworkers/bosses or have spouses or jobs where it would be ‘inconvenient’ (like they could lose their job or their spouses job for them or their position), if they were not able to speak out anonymously through a pseudonym.

There are so many angles on this issue. It was wrong when Facebook did it and it’s even more wrong (if there is such a thing) for Google to do it. Why is it more wrong for Google? Because we have higher expectations of Google. They have always tried to ‘do no evil’ in the past and now they will be right in the middle of it. Was ‘do no evil’ only to get people to trust them? Like Apple with their ‘think different’ and revolution anti-big brother stance in their 1984 commercial? But all the time they had other plans?

If you are not familiar, and it would likely be easy not to be familiar if you are not on G+ aka Google Plus service or have friends that are. Since it is an invite only ‘field test’ at the moment anyway, many would be not involved. But many geeks, technicians, artists, artisans, journalists, etc. are on it to help improve it and try it out as the new kid on the block in social networking. I have been one of these folks for some time now. First with a pseudonym which was quickly squashed through either someone turning me in for having a pseudonym or their algorithm bot got me because the name was obviously not a real name, and after that was disabled, I decided to come back as my business name.

Here are some, and just a few really of the articles that address the issues better than I could ever do:

Understanding the Nym Wars (BoingBoing) with several links and some great commentary


A Case for Pseudonyms (EFF.org)


Google+ Identity Crisis: What’s at Stake With Real Names and Privacy (Wired.com)

Violet Blue: just one of her many postings about Pseudonyms on G+ and she has a legitimate gripe and one of her articles on ZDNet


“Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power (danah boyd blog)


Tracking the Nym Wars (G+ Insider’s Guide)

On Pseudonymity, Privacy and Responsibility on Google+ – Kee Hinkley

Why It’s Important To Turn the Tide on Google’s Real Name Policy (Botgirl’s Second Life Diary blog)

Who is harmed by a “Real Names” policy? (GeekFeminism – Wikia.com) (and related Pseudonymity article).

Who is harmed by a “Real Names” policy?

This page lists groups of people who are disadvantaged by any policy which bans Pseudonymity and requires so-called “Real names” (more properly, legal names).

This is an attempt to create a comprehensive list of groups of people who are affected by such policies.

The cost to these people can be vast, including:

  • harassment, both online and offline
  • discrimination in employment, provision of services, etc.
  • actual physical danger of bullying, hate crime, etc.
  • arrest, imprisonment, or execution in some jurisdictions
  • economic harm such as job loss, loss of professional reputation, reduction of job opportunity, etc.
  • social costs of not being able to interact with friends and colleagues
  • possible (temporary) loss of access to their data if their account is suspended or terminated

The groups of people who use pseudonyms, or want to use pseudonyms, are not a small minority (some of the classes of people who can benefit from pseudonyms constitute up to 50% of the total population, and many of the others are classes of people that almost everyone knows). However, their needs are often ignored by the relatively privileged designers and policy-makers who want people to use their real/legal names.


Nymwars – Wikipedia

The icing on the cake was Eric Schmidt the recent but former CEO of Google stating this (guess he can say anything now, eh?):

Eric Schmidt: Google+ Is An Identity Service; User Your Real Name Or Don’t Sign On (Huffington Post)

Schmidt: G+ ‘Identity Service,’ Not Social Network by David Gerard (slash dot or /.):

David Gerard writes
“Eric Schmidt has revealed that Google+ is an identity service, and the ‘social network’ bit is just bait. Schmidt says ‘G+ is completely optional,’ not mentioning that Google has admitted that deleting a G+ account will seriously downgrade your other Google services. As others have noted, Somewhere, there are two kids in a garage building a company whose motto will be ‘Don’t be Google.‘”

And here’s one I missed that I just saw over at Google+ on Nom DeB‘s profile posts:

Google+ Can Be A Social Network Or The Name Police – Not Both by Bob Blakley at Gartner Blogs

Really all you need to do to find out more about this is to search on Google or any other search engine for any number of combinations of words in this article.

Now we even have a place for Google Refuges to be able to link up after they leave Google+.

EDIT: grammer/clarity and to add Bob Blakley’s Gartner blog article. Also almost forgot my TWEETMEME link, and Added Todd Vierling’s “Just go somewhere else” is a fallacy. The name policy stretches far beyond Google+, and here’s why.”

New Mac Malware – Is Mac no longer safer?

[tweetmeme source=”franscomputerservices” only_single=false]Update: 5/25/2011 – Updates to this posting from Computerworld and USAToday and Apple themselves in the form of a Support document to help users to remove the malware, and promise to provide a tool that will remove it and notify users if they attempt to download the malware. See details below.

With the equivalent of “Security Center 2011” now having a counterpart for the Mac called “MAC Defender, Mac Security, Mac Protector, or any number of knockoff names“, there is a lot of discussion as to how safe the Mac still is compared with Windows.

I have not seen any Windows variant of this type of malware that is as easy to remove from Windows as it is from the Mac.

Sure, Malwarebytes Antimalware will take care of it easily on Windows, even if you somehow are tricked through social engineering to click on it (it can get a little dicier depending on how far you let it get), but with the Mac, you just go to Applications, find Mac Defender and throw it in the trash and flush. What’s easier than that? Here‘s the full instructions in Bleeping Computer’s full removal instructions.

EDIT 5/25/2011 – IMPORTANT REMOVAL INFO: Apple has also now posted removal instructions including killing the process, removing the program, and stopping it from starting on boot, here. This was noted in Computerworld: Apple admits Mac scareware infections, promises cleaning tool and USAToday: Apple to issue Mac update to halt malware attacks, and Arstechnica: Apple acknowledges Mac Defender malware, promises software update, as well as likely other places on the web today.

The Computerworld article above notes:

Andrew Storms, director of security operations with nCircle Security, was surprised that Apple said it would embed a malware cleaning tool in Mac OS X.

“That’s new ground for Apple,” Storms said, pointing out that the move is a first for the company, which until now has only offered a bare-bones malware detection mechanism in Mac OS X 10.6, aka Snow Leopard, and then only populated it with a handful of signatures.

“Not only is Apple going to help customers remove [Mac Defender], but by doing so, they’re also admitting that there are security problems with Mac OS,” Storms said.

Even though it is very easy to remove, with Mac Defender out there, it does mean that malware, particularly on compromised websites, have begun to include other platforms. And you can bet others will follow. And they may not be as easy to remove.

So, does it mean Mac users should be installing Antivirus and/or Antimalware programs? I have, but according to the Wired.com article below:

Charlie Miller, a security researcher who has repeatedly won the annual Pwn2Own hacking contest by hacking Macs and iPhones, told Wired.com he doesn’t think so.

Ultimately, it’s up to the customer because there’s a trade-off involved. Anti-virus software will help protect your system from being infected, but it’s expensive, uses system memory and reduces battery life.

“Mac malware is still relatively rare, but is getting worse,” Miller said. “At some point soon, the scales will tip to installing antivirus, but at this point, I don’t think it’s worth it yet for most people.”

So how is this happening?

Browser choice and settings The first problem I see for Mac users is Safari and it’s settings. First for the same reason I rarely ever use Internet Explorer in Windows, I rarely use Safari on the Mac. Safari by default allows opening of files automatically after download. Bad move. This caused problems in the past with some ‘rogue’ Widgets a few years ago, but folks realized it was easy to fix this and turned it off under Safari preferences. With Safari open, Click Safari on the Menu bar, then click Preferences, on the first tab (General), at the bottom, untick Open ‘safe’ files after downloading. Personally, I prefer to use a variety of browsers, such as Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera for various things. Firefox and Chrome have some some great addons to help protect you. Opera has some as well.

Keeping programs up to date – Keeping Adobe Flash, Adobe Reader, and other addons/plugins, web browsers, and other software that touch the Internet up to date, as well as the operating system itself.

Paying attention The next biggest problem I see are people not paying close enough attention (regardless of their OS), and not familiarizing themselves with their OS as well as they could. This type of malware tries to replicate some sort of a security area on the OS to some degree and scare you into thinking they are finding malware on your system.

This type of malware requires you allow the installation.

On Windows computers, by clicking through the Administrator authentication box, and on the Mac by authenticating with your Admin password.

On Windows, way too many things ask for this kind of authentication (although it is better than it used to be), but on the Mac, which is more like UNIX/Linux in that regard, you are only asked when it could be a potential threat to the system like installing software that wants access to the system, or needs access to system areas. We should always be sure we know what is being installed and why before authenticating with our Admin password. Don’t have a password? Set one up under Accounts in the System Preferences today!

Search results People need to be able to tell the legitimate search results from the bogus ones that have managed to get into the top searches through Black Hat SEO technicques. If you don’t have a way to at least tell whether a site is good, bad or indifferent, it makes it so easy to click on the wrong one. There are programs that can help with this. They are not foolproof, use common sense as well. A free community based one is MyWOT and it works on Windows, Mac, and Linux. There are others that work on Windows as well from antivirus/firewall companies.

Keeping things cleaned up Having and using a temporary files cleaner. I run it after every single browser session, but every day or at worst case once a week would work as long as you don’t notice any issues or weirdness with your OS.

There is a good one for Windows called CCleaner (free and paid versions). For the Mac there are several available. I like MainMenu. It is not free, priced at $15 and a bit more for the Pro version. Main Menu is also available in the MacApp Store. Another favorite is free, OnyX.

You can find out more information about this “Mac Defender” malware in the following articles:

An AppleCare support rep talks: Mac malware is “getting worse” (at Ed Bott Microsoft Report on ZDNet (first article on it)

New Mac Malware Fools Customers, But Threat Still Relatively Small (Wired.com’s Gadget Labs)

Malware on the Mac: is there cause for concern? Ars investigates (Arstechnica)

Modern Mac owners need to ignore the dinosaurs and get protection (Hardware 2.0 at ZDNet)

Microsoft links fake Mac AV to Windows scareware gang (Computerworld)

Don’t Panic Over the Latest Mac Malware Story (SecurityWeek):

Now that we’ve established who benefits from Mac malware predictions — security companies and a certain type of IT professional — the second question is, do we care about the prediction that “serious” malware is coming to Macs? Only a little. It is true that Macs aren’t dusted with some sort of magic unicorn Unix-y pixie powder that makes it less vulnerable to security flaws than Windows. But it is equally true that the Mac remains a less risky platform than Windows because of the fewer strains of malware written for OS X. By “fewer” I mean 99% fewer: a hundred malware samples versus 50 million. The Mac also has a much less evolved malware supply chain. By “less evolved” I mean “nonexistent,” this one example notwithstanding.

And with that, I will close this topic for the time being…

EDIT added Bleeping Computer article on removal of Mac Defender and the last article from Hardware 2.0 at ZDNet and Microsoft links face Mac AV to Windows Scareware Gang at Computerworld and Don’t Panic Over the Latest Mac Malware Story at SecurityWeek.