MORONS FROM GOOGLE+! read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymwars. read cite-reference #27. but most of all, read what is written below. You do not have the right to second-guess peoples' ability to follow standard practices for working out whether they are talking to a real person. In fact: to make yourself "God" in this way is to open yourselves up to lawsuits in cases where the identity *is* successfully faked!
The response received to the documentation below was that "no proof existed of the use of 'lkcl' as an online identity". This is so FUCKING obviously untrue that it's hard to imagine why you - google - are employing people that are so clearly incapable of reading.
The Google Hangouts system is beautiful, exciting and revolutionary. I was really looking forward to recommending it to my friend, who has a business that is perfectly suited to the dual-role of real-time broadcasting and real-time videoconferencing. The ability to invite people to speak to the audience could literally have been designed specifically for her business.
However: because of the fascist and arrogant "forced" identity system, there's no FUCKING WAY I will recommend that my friend use Google Hangouts. No other Internet company in the world has the fascist audacity to force people to link to a real identity. It is DANGEROUS.
THINK for fuck's sake. What happens in a case of rape or murder, where the rapist or the murderer, as part of a premeditated attack, compromises someone's Google+ identity, stalks their victims online and then rapes or kills them? Because of your FUCKING ARROGANT insistence on linking to "real" identities, not only is there the risk of a miscarriage of justice but also there is going to be a serious burden of proof on the person who was defrauded that it was NOT them
In addition to that, Google-Plus will have to get involved with the police. Google-Plus will have to provide documentary evidence showing that the "real" person was *different* from the "fraudulent" person. Google-Plus will need to keep an audit trail of all activities. Google-Plus technical specialists will need to appear in court, explaining why and how their system could have been defrauded. Google-Plus Lawyers will need to be paid to deal with the mess. Can you see why this is such a severely bad idea? Has the lesson from UK ISPs who are deliberately deleting all log data not sunk in to you, yet?
By contrast: if there *was* no link to identities, there would be *no* expectation that the "real" person was in fact "real" (or potentially fraudulent). Do you understand why this is so important? Just like with U.S. Social Security Numbers where it is incredibly hard for banks and insurance companies to accept that you have been the victim of identity fraud, if ever that happens - and it *does* happen. And it's incredibly easy to do. In complete contrast to any expectation that "real" identity is "good", Google+'s forced "real identity" system actually makes things *worse*.
Then there is the problem SPAM. My mum was forced to change her email address when someone compromised her account somehow, and started using it to distribute SPAM. If someone starts to compromise a Google+ profile, how the FUCK can anyone move away from appearing to be responsible for that SPAM?? Do you *seriously* expect people to change their name by Title Deed for fuck's sake?
Have you ever had an SMTP server on a fixed IP address, and had to deal with someone who doesn't understand how easy it is to fake up SPAM? Some fuckwit moron reported *me* to my ISP, because there happened to be the IP address of my server in the middle of the (fake) HTML SPAM message. Time after time, I explained to this fuckwit that the message was fake, pointing to the SMTP headers showing them the real source of the message. They simply didn't understand, and continued to accuse me, even when saying "ok, yes i get it, thank you for explaining SMTP headers to me: i see that it's fake" they also continued in the next sentence, "... but you still must be the SPAMMER because it's your IP address in the main body of the message". In the end I was forced to relinquish the static IP address. This same thing WILL happen to Google+.Then there is the problem of online stalking. You *have* taken into account the fact that this is going to happen, yes? You *have* thought about the consequences of someone receiving hate mail to their Google+ account? You clearly haven't, because if you had, you would not be forcing people to have "real" identities associated with accounts, would you?
Justin.tv does not force people to provide their real identities. Justin.tv *trusts* people when they say who they are. They provide other people with the means to "report" people should there be a problem. They trust *other people* to "police" the system. If there's a serious problem, then Law Enforcement are provided with evidence, including the IP addresses and so on. Google+ is the only system in the world with the sheer fascist arrogance to think that they can play God by forcing people to reveal publicly, in an increasingly dangerous world, who they are. SIEG HEIL Google Plus! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!
There are heuristics and rules that can be followed which help people to prove to each other that they are who they are. Take something as simple as a phone call. Much of the beginning of the conversation first establishes that volume and language are two-way compatible. Subsequent communication establishes identity (with many banks not bothering to provide evidence of their identity, I am amazed that people hand out personal information at this phase just because the bank says "for security purposes please can you provide confidential information XY and Z"). Only once identity is confirmed do people move on to set the scene and the tone for the actual communication - for example by discussing the weather - and they then actually communicate. Social Networking follows similar rules. Social Networking follows *real* people. In other words, those "real" people's lives are merely reflected online. If someone's online identity is *truly* faked by a scammer, it will not take long for their friends to discover the changes in behaviour (see "Sanctuary", Season 1 Episode 5), and you surely, surely have algorithms and heuristics in place to help detect identity fraud, already, yes?
The bottom line is that Google+ is saying "we don't trust you". We are setting ourselves up as God. You have to trust us. Well, we *don't* trust you. You're not God. You're a business. You are permitted to lie in order to maximise profits, with absolutely no penalty for lying. I've read "Creating a World Without Poverty", and I've seen "The Corporation". You CANNOT be trusted. People know this, and it's quite likely to be the real reason why Google+ is not being successful. People DON'T WANT to give you their "real" names. It makes them uneasy that they can't ever change it. Only Google+ hasn't worked out why Google+ isn't successful. When you start listening, and drop this stupid, arrogant policy, you'll find that people are more receptive to Google+.
Documentation submitted to Google+ for the use of "lkcl" as the "name". Notice that my "real" name is "Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton". this doesn't fit into 2 boxes. It's 4 words. Google's system forces me even to lie about my "real" identity. How fucked is that??
i've been using "lkcl" since 1990 even before the internet became popular, as it was my login at imperial college. it's my initials, and it's pretty unique, and is part of my online identity as a prominent free software developer. during the time when i was working on samba, altavista showed half a MILLION hits for "lkcl". even now, a search on google.co.uk shows "only" 104,000 hits. not even my quotes real quotes name, "luke kenneth casson leighton" has that many hits: it varies between 40,000 and 75,000. my username on sourceforge: lkcl my username on savannah.gnu.org: lkcl. my username on advogato.org: lkcl, where there are over 80 published articles dating back to 2000. some of them even make sense. my usename on gitorious.org: lkcl. my username on github.com before i deleted it due to the objectionable terms and conditions: lkcl. my username on ohloh.net under which there are *TWENTY* recorded projects and a kudos ranking of "9" (2743 out of 1694051): lkcl https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/lkcl https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/lkcl/kudos my username on phil hands' debian UK mirror, hands.com: lkcl (http://hands.com/~lkcl) my username on skype: "lkcl.." because the fascist little tits wouldn't let me use a 4 letter username. my domain name: lkcl.net (registered in 2000). my email address at my domain name: lkcl@lkcl.net my username on twitter: lkcl. my username on facebook: fuckers forced it to luke.k.leighton in the usual fascist american way of totally ignoring the fact that people *outside* the united states can have two middle names. they also didn't ask my permission before creating the username. my username on wikipedia: Lkcl because the arsehole stupid wikipedia system capitalises the first letter *without* my consent. my username on allpoetry.com: lkcl, where i have posted over 250 poems online. my username on librarything.com: lkcl. my username on youtube: lkcl. my username on slashdot: lkcl. my username on CB1's cafe computers where i did most of my early research into NT Domains for Samba, back in 1996: lkcl. my username on myopenid.com: lkcl. my username on thingiverse.com: lkcl. my username on developer.mozilla.org: lkcl my username on the guardian's "blog": lkcl. my username on leaflabs.com's web site: lkcl. sci.crypt newsgroup: username lkcl, email address lkcl@lkcl.net i trust that you're getting it through that there does actually exist an identity for people where that identity is more "real" than their quotes real quotes name. i can if you prefer get my name changed by Title Deed to "lkcl" but i really would rather not be forced into such a fucked-up situation. alternatively i can if you like start calling myself "L. Kcl", just like andrew tridgell starting signing emails as "Tony Ridge", and Rusty Russell started using "Ruben Usty" at a company where they had a forced company policy of allocating email addresses by first-letter last-name *without* taking into account the already-well-established online identity of those particular individuals. in short: i like my name, damnit, and it's whom i'm known as, even if people run away screaming in free software forums when they see me coming. at least they know to start running. if i use the name "luke leighton" in such forums, they might think it was someone actually normal. am i making the point clearly enough? l.