Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Google Killing Accounts Can Leave Androids Orphaned

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the changing-the-locks dept.

Android 210

jfruhlinger writes "As we've heard in cases of pseudonym-users in Google+, or in the case of Dylan Marcheschi that went viral last week, Google can kill your account at any time — and since Google is keen on tying your account to its entire range of services, that means you could lose data stored everywhere from Gmail to Picasa. Blogger Dan Tynan examined one particular aspect of this problem — namely, the plight of someone who's been Google-executed and who uses an Android phone."

cancel ×

210 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wierd (1)

kotku (249450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920124)

Why would you create an anonymous google account and then use your real name when complaining that it was deleted?

Re:Wierd (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920156)

Nobody did, so the only wierd thing is that you would come to that conclusion.

Re:Wierd (1)

kotku (249450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920176)

From the summary!

"As we've heard in cases of pseudonym-users in Google+"

Re:Wierd (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920256)

pseudonym != anonymous

Re:Wierd (1, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920636)

my pseudonym is "anonymous" you insensitive clod

Re:Wierd (-1, Offtopic)

alta (1263) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920290)

he has high uid. doesn't know what pseudonym means...

Re:Wierd (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920434)

And where is the part of them using their real names to complain?
 

Re:Wierd (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920388)

The only wierd thing is spelling wierd wierd.

Re:Wierd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920882)

The only wierd thing is spelling wierd wierd.

nedlohs and you are no longer freinds.

Sucks to be you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920130)

Thanks for testing...

Is anybody suprised? (4, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920136)

Really? Putting all your data in the hands of a third-party means they could arbitrarily shut you out for whatever reason they want. Film at 11.

Re:Is anybody suprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920518)

You did it wrong.

Re:Is anybody suprised? (4, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36921172)

On the other hand "Company with generally good service locks multiple accounts for minor infraction on one product; generates bad press" is quite surprising. It's not a shock that they can do this, it's a shock that they did do so in a competitive market when they have a history of providing the better product - coming from a telecom company I'd say this kind of thing would be par for the course, coming from Google it's a surprise and a shame.

Not again ??!! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920152)

Isn't this the same issue as previously mentioned - only Google Profile services are affected by bans - GMail ISN'T one of those services and Android phones are (at most) tied to a GMail account in order to use the Marketplace ???

Seems like another dig at Google+ for no apparent reason.

Re:Not again ??!! (5, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920242)

Google keep claiming that locked G+ profiles don't block GMail. However, reports keep coming in - e.g. from the Guardian, this story [guardian.co.uk] . And a followup from Thursday [guardian.co.uk] - despite Bradley Horowitz claiming two days before that mail locks were not happening, even though they clearly were and still clearly are.

The message that's going out: Don't get a G+ account, or your email is at risk.

I wonder if anyone at Google ever thought their policy would lead to headlines in major general-interest newspapers.

Re:Not again ??!! (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920378)

The message that's going out: Don't get a G+ account, or your email is at risk.

Which is a silly message. The message should be: if you are going to use a third party to provide your email, and you actually care about being to use, then make sure that you have a contract with them that requires them to keep providing the service. If you use a free service that's subject to termination without notice at the whim of the provider, then don't be surprised if it's terminated without notice at the whim of the provider.

Re:Not again ??!! (5, Funny)

trum4n (982031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920428)

I've got a better one: DON'T LIE ABOUT YOUR IDENTITY. If you're afraid, get the hell off the internet. This is just like the real world. No place for pussies. I am ready to be modded troll for my beliefs.

Re:Not again ??!! (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920530)

I'm sorry, but Slashdot has determined that trum4n is not your real name and has therefore suspended your account.

Re:Not again ??!! (0)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920642)

I am ready to be modded troll for my beliefs.

Such bravery surely warrants an epic poem.

Re:Not again ??!! (0)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920902)

I am ready to be modded troll for my beliefs.

Such bravery surely warrants an epic poem.

I can tell it's Friday... I read that as
"Such bravery surely warrants an epic porn."

At first I thought you were going to reward him, then I thought maybe you were being sarcastic and meant Goatse.

And then I read the message again and noticed it said poem.

Re:Not again ??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36921058)

I am ready to be modded troll for my beliefs.

Such bravery surely warrants an epic poem.

Don't make it a an epic poem detailing the life and works of seven mythical Norse heroes - you might be accused of trying to hack into Bruce Schneier's account!

Re:Not again ??!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920750)

The cost of anonymity/pseudonymity is a bit of trolling.
The cost of using real identities is group-think, conformity, pluralistic ignorance, the spiral of silence, and all manner of collective behavior.

It's practically the root of all evil. No wonder governments are so keen on strong identity.

Re:Not again ??!! (1)

itsenrique (846636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36921016)

Lying about and withholding your identity are two different things, on the internet and in the 'real world'.

Re:Not again ??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920528)

But that would make Google...Evil.

Re:Not again ??!! (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920588)

While it's foolish to trust that a provider is never ever going to fuck you around, that does not make Google's actions here any less odious.

Re:Not again ??!! (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920698)

The interesting thing is that the terms of service that were agreed to warned users of impending doom, and they ran head-long into this and only started complaining after that doom came to pass. What better way of warning users to not break the rules should there be? Google+ was meant to be location and identity based to resist the tragedy of anonymity from ruining it. Just see the Google Finance forums if you need any evidence that anonymity (or at least the disguising of a name that empowers users to be total dickwads) is a recipe for disaster. Hell, don't even leave slashdot, just have a look around at the discourse coming from those who post anon or with throw-away usernames, and those that post with established (if not real) names.

Re:Not again ??!! (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920352)

Well... if Google effectively revoked the purchase of everything I'd purchased through Android Market without refund or recourse by suspending my Gmail account (the only way to purchase anything through Android Market), I'd be pretty pissed and would probably sue them just as a matter of principle. It's one thing to take away somebody's email service. It's another thing to retroactively confiscate purchased software whose only available means of mainstream purchase is with that Gmail account (or, in the case of AT&T, the only way to purchase apps, period... at least for now).

Even if the apps remained working until the phone were reflashed or replaced, I reflash my phone frequently as is my inalienable Linus/RMS-given right. If Google wants to be able to kill Gmail accounts for any reason (or no reason at all), they'd better damn well come up with a parallel SSO identifier for Android phones that can survive Google Exile unscathed. ESPECIALLY given their "shoot first, then be disinterested in even pretending to care about asking questions later" policy. At this rate, by the end of the year, there will be at least a dozen movie plots circulating around Hollywood for a proposed movie called "GoogleX'ed" whose plot is somebody who gets exiled from Google and has his life cascade and snowball into disintegration around him as service after service gets cancelled because it depends upon some other service that ultimately was tied to a Google service.

Kinda walked into that one (5, Interesting)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920166)

From the article

"... found out why. A Google bot that automatically scans Picasa for illegal images flagged something Marcheschi had posted as child pornography. .....

It turns out that the image he posted, though admittedly disturbing, was not technically porn. In fact, he says his reason for posting the image – to a collection he curated called “The Evolution of Sex” -- was to make a point about how you can post images of minors being sexualized without breaking any laws. (Marcheschi says Google deleted the image, he has no other copy, and doesn’t remember where he found it on the InterWebs, so there’s no way to judge for yourself.)"

While I don't like the idea that google can delete your account, this is suspicious as anything to me. The fact that he also broke all traces of the image now kinda makes it suspicious to me. (Not to mention that its prolly copyright infringement too, but that's unrelated).

Re:Kinda walked into that one (1)

psychobudgie (1416459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920208)

When someone qualifies a statement by saying "It's not technically.." It normally is or is that close it may as well be.

Re:Kinda walked into that one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920334)

Well, technically, "pornography" is pictures of prostitutes.

Re:Kinda walked into that one (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36921146)

Define pornography.

Even the US Supreme Court can't do it objectively - the closest they got was when former Justice Frankfurter said "...I know it when I see it" [yale.edu]

Not exactly something you can hinge an objective proof on, is it?

Honestly though, you'd think the guy would stop and think about it before he did it, and at least be prepared for the possible consequences.

Re:Kinda walked into that one (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920250)

Marcheschi says Google deleted the image, he has no other copy, and doesn’t remember where he found it on the InterWebs, so there’s no way to judge for yourself.)"

It's on Wikipedia, and it is the cover of the album Virgin Killer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

The naked virgin is 12, and clearly posing sexually. This image is highly illegal in many countries, including Sweden.

Re:Kinda walked into that one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920416)

That's child porn? Porn?
It's a picture of a nude girl, you could see that on every nude beach. What's the problem?
(Now watch me go down in flames)

Re:Kinda walked into that one (2)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920486)

I agree.

As an American in Germany for the summer there were 10-13 year olds running around naked on the beach, which while extremely awkward for me (coming from America) seemed totally natural to everyone else there.

A nude body isn't pornographic just because it is a nude body.

Re:Kinda walked into that one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920522)

It's the "think of the children" mentality.
Any moral or questionable law can be passed if you can drum up a "think of the children" scenario.

This type of BS will go away when religion (of any type) is frowned upon like satanism is today.

Re:Kinda walked into that one (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920752)

Er... I've defended Nirvana's "Nevermind" album cover on the basis that it's a baby and anyone whose response is to see that as being sexual has a genuine problem.

Doubly so as there's nothing sexual about the context and swimming babies generally don't wear trunks or swimsuits (the very idea is ludicrous and actually requiring that would be more contrived and weird).

But the Scorpions cover? Less justifiable- the girl is older, but more significantly the pose *is* borderline sexual and the bloody album title is "Virgin Killer" after all.

Whether or not it actually qualifies as CP is questionable, but it's very definitely Spinal Tap-esque bad taste!

Re:Kinda walked into that one (1, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920326)

The fact that he also broke all traces of the image now kinda makes it suspicious to me. (Not to mention that its prolly copyright infringement too, but that's unrelated).

What about an ancient Greek vase depicting a naked, aroused, male youth? I'm pretty sure they exist (try Wikipedia, I'm not willing to look at work). Some countries would consider that child pornography.

What about a 6 year old girl wearing a padded bra? There were news stories here recently criticising this kind of thing (e.g. here [dailymail.co.uk] ). Wearing something equivalent but flat (e.g. swimming wear) is fine, and there are plenty of pictures on clothes store sites. But is the padded bra sexualisation, and does (should?) that make a photograph CP?

Re:Kinda walked into that one (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920840)

Greeks weren't all that into boners, with a few exceptions like Priapus. However the ancient Egyptians had tons of enormous murals full of guys with erections. When the puritanical European archaeologists found all these things during their early excavations during and after the Age of Enlightenment (ha!), with no respect for their historical value they immediately defaced most of them.

Re:Kinda walked into that one (5, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920338)

But it isn't really 'your' account. You merely signed up for a service created, implemented, and hosted by Google. You paid Google nothing for it and although I haven't read the Picasa TOS I suspect it contains some amount of favoritism toward Google, since Google wrote it.

All of this internet service type stuff is very new, but even non-technical people need to be reminded that any digital sandcastles they might build on someone else's beach are subject to being washed away at any time without notice and regardless of the difficulty it might cause. All a person need do is sit down and read one single TOS in its entirety to understand that.

Re:Kinda walked into that one (1)

bertok (226922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36921070)

But it isn't really 'your' water pipe. You merely signed up for a service created, implemented, and hosted by the water company.

Or your electricity. Or phone service. Or mail service.

The thing is, with Google, if you do one thing wrong with one service, free or not, they instantly cut you off from everything, even the paid services, with zero warning. This is akin to a billing dispute with your water company resulting in your gas, electricity, and your phone getting cut off simultaneously.

And what's "wrong" anyway? Nobody can tell for sure except Google. It's not even clear even if you do read the 500 page long terms of service. The example of child pornography is perfect -- laws vary wildly between different countries! There's differences in intellectual property law too, I can see people being cut off for posting material that is copyrighted in the US, but public domain in their home country.

Having everything cut off instantly for one misstep with no recourse is terrifying. I'm certainly rethinking my future usage of Google services.

Re:Kinda walked into that one (2)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920660)

The fact that he also broke all traces of the image now kinda makes it suspicious to me. (Not to mention that its probably copyright infringement too, but that's unrelated).

Regardless that it's the cover of an album of Scorpions, If he got the pic to make that point about legality, he reasonably wanted to isolate his procuring activities as much as possible to be accountable and/or on the safe/legal side (only one copy, never return to the original place). Of course, Google was not happy to find out that such collection was in its servers and it kicked him out. In the end he won't be prosecuted and got the exposure he was looking for, in exchange for his Google Account (and everything that means).

Not defending him or criticizing, just trying to think as he thought...

Re:Kinda walked into that one (3)

DaAdder (124139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920688)

From the article

"... found out why. A Google bot that automatically scans Picasa for illegal images flagged something Marcheschi had posted as child pornography. .....

The fact that he also broke all traces of the image now kinda makes it suspicious to me. (Not to mention that its prolly copyright infringement too, but that's unrelated).

Clearly the way you got about storing and concealing your child pornography is by creating an on line web album of it on picasa.

Also, I find it very strange indeed that Google can make these claims, highly dangerous claims to make about anyone considering what they can do to your reputation or indeed your life, and then refuse to give you a single reason why they did it. Not even a hint of a reason, just a brick wall.

It's strange how a highly public company that we trust with most of our data can act this way and get away with it, that it in fact can even be legal. There should be some form of due process or consumer right involved her that couldn't legally be signed away with a simple EULA. Free service or no free service, both parties should have certain obligations as long as they're in business. Whether that business be eyeballs for emails or any other form of relationship, especially a commercial one such as this.

But my name really is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920170)

Coward Anonymous!

Re:But my name really is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920734)

Yeah right, next you'll tell us you live in Fort Gay...

Facebook will benefit from this (4, Informative)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920182)

I think Facebook will end up benefiting from Google tying everything together under one umbrella. I can't speak for everyone, but I couldn't care less if my Facebook account got banned or closed. I primarily use it to socialize with some distant relatives and old classmates. It is not essential. If I lose my Facebook account it doesn't affect my email. Facebook doesn't track my Google searches.

Facebook may be a hated company, but at least they are relatively isolated.

It just doesn't make sense to put all your eggs in one basket. By using Google for everything you end up with a single point of failure.

Best-case scenario is that Google scares Facebook enough that Facebook improves their privacy controls and updates their friends lists to be more front-and-center like Google circles.

Re:Facebook will benefit from this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920284)

OMG - you can't speak for everyone? I had no idea!

Re:Facebook will benefit from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920696)

OMGosh! Hyperbole?

Re:Facebook will benefit from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920344)

>> Facebook doesn't track my Google searches.

That is a fairly naive statement. With Facebook being installed on a majority of websites, anything major, they fully have the capability to track a lot of referring information. And I am sure they are, whether they admit it or not. They are advertisers

Re:Facebook will benefit from this (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920402)

True, I am not saying that Facebook doesn't collect as much information on me as they can manage, but in scope they are amateurs compared to Google in that regard. It is not that I search for illegal or questionable content, but I just hate the idea of them keeping track of my searches. At least if I am signed out of Gmail/Google+ then their tracking is a bit more anonymous and doesn't associate my activity with my profile.

Re:Facebook will benefit from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920420)

You bring up a good point about a single point of failure by doing everything Google. This actually is worse than those who go around talking about file formats that you magically won't be able to read some day because they're not open standard formats. If MS stopped using some format in Word in its next release you could always convert them with the old version before moving on to a new version, with Google your data would die along with the "application" that ran it and all Google would have to do is claim that you're violating the terms of service.

Re:Facebook will benefit from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920704)

Facebook are pushing their new email feature at the moment.

Re:Facebook will benefit from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36921096)

You know, this might sound paranoid or illegal and morally wrong, but if I were in charge of a intelligence agency, then this little project would sound like the Holly Grail, the Ark and fountain of youth in one.

FUD article (5, Informative)

Cheburator-2 (260358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920190)

Google doesn't suspend Gmail and Picasa when it disables Google+ profile, only Google+ and unfortunately Google Reader gets suspended. And in case of Dylan - well, just don't put anything resembling child porno in Picasa, and you'd be ok.

Re:FUD article (2)

biodata (1981610) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920244)

"if you don't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear" Where have I heard that one before?

Re:FUD article (3, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920454)

That tired cliche rests on the unsound assumption that the powers that be don't make mistakes.

The reason we have a legal system with warrants, trials, juries, and all that other fluff instead of an omniscient judge whose word is immediate and final is precisely BECAUSE humans are fallible, corruptible, potentially senile beings who cannot be trusted either with their minds OR their hearts.

Re:FUD article (5, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920262)

This is an official claim, but the reports keep coming in of GMail being locked with G+, e.g.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/25/1 [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/28/google-open-letter-google [guardian.co.uk]

Re:FUD article (0)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920600)

Google+ accounts get suspended when whole Google accounts get suspended, and also in Google+ only situations.

Re:FUD article (1)

DaAdder (124139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920828)

Google doesn't suspend Gmail and Picasa when it disables Google+ profile, only Google+ and unfortunately Google Reader gets suspended. And in case of Dylan - well, just don't put anything resembling child porno in Picasa, and you'd be ok.

I know that this goes beyond TFA, but in the TFA the following article is linked: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/bt5akp [twitlonger.com]

Now he certainly got all his google services suspended or removed entirely, all due to an image automatically flagged on picasa. No human oversight, no appeals process or means of proving innocence. He was automatically assumed guilty and data being deleted, services terminated.

That sounds a little bit different from what you're describing.

Huh? (2)

david.given (6740) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920224)

So factory reset it and associate it with a different account. I do Android development and we do this as a matter of course to switch to different accounts. Am I missing something? What's the problem?

Re:Huh? (1)

timepilot (116247) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920324)

I think the article was written by someone who has never used an Android phone and couldn't be bothered to take the time to verify the nonsense that they were passing on.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Thantik (1207112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920384)

And then every purchased market app suddenly goes byebye...

Re:Huh? (1)

Spiffy (16623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920412)

Not arguing with you, but I'm just curious.

If Google cuts off one account and you have to create another to get back the functionality of your Android phone, what happens to the apps? Do you still have full access? Can you re-download them from the marketplace?

I would expect that you'd lose a lot if you had to change your Google identity to work your Android phone, but I don't have experience with them, so I honestly don't know

Re:Huh? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920576)

Well quite apart from it being a complete hassle as you'll have to recreate all your contacts, copy your music, etc back to it, and so on, you'll also lose access to any apps you've purchased. Apart from that sure, it's a great solution to Google's fuck-up.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920584)

Testing != real life. You actually tie things to an account in real life.

If they block my account, I can lose access to my email, photos, custom setups, calendars, documents, voicemail/phone number, blog pages, adsense accounts, billing, credit card info, perhaps actual money from adsense.

See here for a list of what can be taken from you.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/index.html [google.com]

Granted, it's a free service with no guarantees, but that doesn't mean there isn't real impact on real people.

Re:Huh? (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920592)

Well, I have zero credentials as I don't have an Android phone and don't use GMail or Google+ or really any of Google's services at all, but I can read the article.

I asked Google what would happen. The news is both good and bad.

"Your Android phone would still function, for example to make phone calls, surf the Web, send and receive texts, etc.," sayeth a Google spokeshuman. "Obviously Gmail, Contacts and other services tied to your Google Account wouldn't work."

In that case, your only option would be to create a new Google account and, yes, start from scratch. That would likely involve a factory reset of your phone, so kiss your contacts, text messages, and other stored data goodbye.

So...I don't think it's quite as bad as the attention-seeking story headline makes it sound at first read, but it's still inconvenient at best. I lost several (not all) of my contacts a few months ago when my company upgraded my BlackBerry and it's a pain in the proverbial. If you're doing this for development purposes, you probably don't have actual real contacts stored on your phone.

Are you even serious. (1)

tkprit (8581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920706)

It's more reasonable to use your real google accounts with gmail, calendar, picasa, etc on the phones, where it's actually USEFUL, and limit G+ to the fake google account on a pc.

(And after this brouhaha, to find non-google solutions for your phone data.)

Damn, this is the FIRST TIME I've wished I'd standardized on iPhones instead of Androids. Never heard of apple (or even MS) basically bricking phones.

Re:Are you even serious. (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36921148)

It's more reasonable to use your real google accounts with gmail, calendar, picasa, etc on the phones, where it's actually USEFUL, and limit G+ to the fake google account on a pc.

(And after this brouhaha, to find non-google solutions for your phone data.)

Damn, this is the FIRST TIME I've wished I'd standardized on iPhones instead of Androids. Never heard of apple (or even MS) basically bricking phones.

Why? You've never heard of Google bricking an Android phone either.

I having a hard time finding the story here. I don't have an iPhone, but I assume you could use an iPhone to work with Gmail. What would happen in that case if Google closed your Gmail account? Your iPhone would still do everything it does, except work with your closed Gmail account.

So what happens with an Android phone and Google closes your Gmail account? Your iPhone would still do everything it does, except work with your closed Gmail account.

What am I missing?

Re:Huh? (1)

Dunega (901960) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920918)

Shh, that doesn't make Google and Android look bad.

Re:Huh? (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920928)

> Am I missing something? What's the problem?

Big, huge bit of advice: don't link your Market developer account to a Gmail account that does anything besides sit passively and be an otherwise-unused Gmail account. If you associated your Market developer account with a gmail account associated with G+ and they suspended it, you'd be *beyond* screwed commercially. Depending upon how aggressively Google wanted to mess up, you might not even be allowed to *create* a new developer's account for Android Market (it would see your credit card number, do a credit check lookup to verify your identity, realize it was associated with a suspended developer's account, and most likely either refuse to allow its creation, or nuke it without refund within hours or days.

THAT's what people are screaming about -- the fact that Google is basically setting people up for domino-like failure cascades that could have devastating professional and commercial consequences, and there are more than a few scenarios where they could happen to somebody who's either outright innocent, or at least didn't deserve the equivalent of an online death penalty.

Googl can kill our account (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920228)

Yes I totally agree, google can kill your account at any time. Link back to my site http://www.call-shop.com

Google is being dumb here (5, Insightful)

cronot (530669) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920236)

I don't like that my G+ profile shouts my real name everywhere too. So I was looking around in my profile, and guess what: There's a "Nickname" field in there - but the profile form explicitly says that it won't be shown in the profile. Why the hell are they doing that? Why have this field if it's not going to be used?

The dumb part is that Google could be fixing this problem in a much less disrupting way: Make the "Nickname" field actually useful, make it the default field shown for the public, or have the user setup if he wants the Nickname to be shown or his real name. Hell, if Google is so bent into real names, at least make the Nickname the field to be shown to the public, and the real name only to your friends / circles. What a waste.

Re:Google is being dumb here (2)

bkaul01 (619795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920802)

So I was looking around in my profile, and guess what: There's a "Nickname" field in there - but the profile form explicitly says that it won't be shown in the profile. Why the hell are they doing that? Why have this field if it's not going to be used?

The "Nickname" field is searchable so you could, for example, fill that as "cronot" and anyone from Slashdot who wanted to follow you would be able to find your profile by searching for your username here.

Let this be a lesson to little girls: (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920260)

If a guy is a lot older than you, make sure to always use his android phone when calling.

my iphone (2)

alta (1263) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920268)

I'm glad my iphone isn't controlled by some mega-company... ;)

Re:my iphone (1)

Five Bucks! (769277) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920438)

Zing ;)

Backup your google docs, gmail (2)

suraj.sun (1348507) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920278)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, backup your google docs, gmail while you can... 'coz believe it or not even though I do not have Google+ or Adsense etc in last 2 weeks I've came across "Account has been disabled" screen twice while logging into gmail though somehow after waiting for few minutes both the times i was able log into gmail. And now I'm taking gmail and docs back few times a day to a folder which is being synced with Skydrive.

Gmail : http://www.gmail-backup.com/ [gmail-backup.com]
Google Docs: http://code.google.com/p/gdocbackup/downloads/list [google.com]

Re:Backup your google docs, gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920686)

It might be unrelated but that use to happen to me years ago. It was a major pain when I had to enter the captcha every time too. Can't remember how I solved it, maybe changed browser? Also google will tell you if you've logged in from another country if you're account has been compromised. Maybe your account has been but from within your territory? There are lots of non-sinister reasons to explain what you're experiencing so just put your tinfoil hat away and be smart when working with cloud technologies.

Re:Backup your google docs, gmail (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920966)

Besides backing up your Gmail data, the other smart thing to do is also get your own domain for your email address and redirect to Gmail. If Google shuts down your account, you can immediately switch to another mail server without letting all your contacts know you've changed email address.

and keep local copies (1)

tkprit (8581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920990)

with a script. Ex: bigpresh's perl script [github.com] .

Tell me, again... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920288)

...why anyone would use Gmail for anything other than utterly disposable correspondence?

Google Takeout designed to help you move most of your stuff off G-services. The problem? It falls down badly when it comes to Gmail – probably the most important Google service for most of us.

Re:Tell me, again... (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920350)

Good thing it supports POP3 and IMAP. Not the most efficient way, but certainly well supported.

  A mailbox that didn't let you get your mail out wouldn't be a whole lot of use.

The headline left me feeling rather sad (0)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920308)

The headline left me feeling rather sad. "Killing Accounts Can Leave Androids Orphaned" made me think of A.I. Artificial Intelligence [imdb.com]

Re:The headline left me feeling rather sad (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36921134)

I can't believe no one thought to subtitle that movie "Department of Redundancy Department."

Here's a thought... (3, Funny)

Spiffy (16623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920432)

Instead of calling it "Google execution," how about simply "excommunication"?

Question here. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920476)

I've been meaning to ask this, but how does Google know that my real name isn't "Pope Ratzo"?

Do they do background checks on Google+ users? Urine tests? Genetic profiling?

Re:Question here. (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 3 years ago | (#36921014)

how does Google know that my real name isn't "Pope Ratzo"?

Because you gave the game away here on Slashdot! Google is too smart to be mislead by a extraneous space. :)

Conflicting Stories (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920492)

A few days back, a Google exec said that a Google Profile ban wouldn't affect GMail, Docs or other Google services. Only Google+ and Reader. Now, the Google spokesperson quoted by the article is saying that Gmail, Contacts and all other Google account services won't work. Which is it? Given that I have so much of my data in GMail, Docs, Reader, etc, the idea of being banned for my name not being "real enough" makes me nervous.

FALSE: Official Google response (4, Informative)

robmv (855035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920520)

Google has explained [google.com] that being banned only from G+ does not ban you from other services

MYTH: Not abiding by the Google+ common name policy can lead to wholesale suspension of one’s entire Google account.

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. Please help get the word out: if your Google+ Profile is suspended for not using a common name, you won't be able to use Google services that require a Google+ Profile, but you'll still be able to use Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Blogger, and so on. (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.)

Re:FALSE: Official Google response (4, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920612)

This is an official claim, but the reports keep coming in of GMail being locked with G+, e.g.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/25/1 [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/28/google-open-letter-google [guardian.co.uk]

Just because Google say it isn't happening does not mean it isn't happening.

I did ask Mr Horowitz in that thread for an explanation or correction. Still waiting.

Re:FALSE: Official Google response (5, Informative)

mutube (981006) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920814)

A few days ago my account was suddenly suspended - with vague references to breaking T&Cs. I had done nothing new with the account bar signing up to Google+ and was using my real name for the profile. ALL my Google services were blocked (at the account level).

I submitted a query and the following day the account was reinstated - again without explanation of what had happened or why. While that is obviously a 'good thing' the lack of explanation means I have no way of knowing if it will happen again.

It is completely bass-ackwards for them to lock access to one service on the basis of your apparent - unproven, inexplained - indiscretions on another. It would be a simple situation to resolve - flagging the service as disabled not the user - if they wanted to.

Stopped me recommending Google+ to anyone anyway. It now gets a "don't bother you might lose your account".

Case and point argument against the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920598)

No IT director worth their salt would move their data out, when this can happen.

All the assurances in the world mean nothing, when you're basically at a third-party's mercy.

I can't see the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920650)

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

What about Paul Hewson and others? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36920656)

I wonder if Google would ban people like Allen Stewart Konigsberg, Paul Hewson, David Robert Hayward Stenton Jones, Melvin Kaminsky, Cherilyn Sarkisian La Piere, Vincent Damon Furnier, Declan Patrick McManus, Terry Bollea, William Michael Albert Broad and so on for using pseudonyms....

Where is the Data Liberation Front? (4, Insightful)

Camahueto (1349531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920708)

Google should offer a way to get your data out of the system, even if your account is locked.

PS: Google said they werent blocking entire accounts just Buzz and Google+ [google.com] a fact is confirmed by some Hong Kong users here [google.com]

much with (4, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920720)

smartphones as well as social networks, in the immortal words of Richard Stallman, "you are the product, not the consumer." so kindly continue your farmville farming, twitter tweeting, foursquare check-ins and placement of those to whom you relate closest into magnificent target demographic circles. the sausage factory doors are to remain locked for a reason.

Google and Facebook have a shareholder responsibility to ensure their product is of the highest quality, you see. in terms of produce, what google is doing is the equivalent of removing rotted tomatoes from their sales cart. So long as you continue to perform normally and consume regularly, there will be no problems. Champion no unsanctioned social causes, boycott no sponsors product, and subvert not the model afforded to you.

Be Like Jason (1)

Ensign_Expendable (1045224) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920760)

Google's bullshit and Apple's walled garden. What's the solution? Be like Jason Bourne: prepaid dumb phones, baby.

My brother got cut off (2)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920932)

My brother, who is computer illiterate, got a smart phone. And of course they made a Google email account for him and he started having things sent to that, bills, tax return stuff and so on. Well since they set it up for the phone to remember the password he never ever used the password except for that one time and of course the phone company rep didn't have him write it down for him. and guess what the phone got reset so his email password had to be put back in. Since this was over a year ago and he can't remember the password he went through the password recovery routine without success. So he lost all his stuff. There is no one to call to talk to. The phone company rep said there is nothing he can do he only sales the phones and has no contact with Google. Not sure where this was going, but I really don't think that they or any service that is now a relayed on utility should not be able to cut you off. they have come to the point of being like electricity. They only cut you off after many warning (so I've heard) not one quick instance.

Read-only access (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36920942)

Google should at least allow people a couple weeks of read-only access to their stuff after they give them the boot. BTW, I use Chrome to get gmail offline but according to the article's author I'm doing the impossible.

Beta (2)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#36921214)

It seems that no one took Google seriously when they labeled Google+ as a beta project. The thing is still under construction and people are complaining that it doesn't work perfectly. Gee, I wonder why.

I'm not into the social networking stuff so I haven't bothered trying to get an invite, but representatives from Google have stated that Google+ deactivation shouldn't deactivate Gmail and other services. This Marcheschi guy didn't get his G+ account banned, the article didn't even say whether he has one, he got his main Google account banned for posting questionable pictures in Picasa.

In fact, he says his reason for posting the image – to a collection he curated called “The Evolution of Sex” -- was to make a point about how you can post images of minors being sexualized without breaking any laws.

So he set out to get his account banned and it worked. Then he publicly griped about it because he's an attention whore. Nothing to see here.

Anyway, what type of sick fuck wants to show images of minors being sexualized, legal or not? Apparently Mr. Marcheschi is fairly computer illiterate considering he doesn't know where to find a picture that was on his computer at one point. Or maybe he just knows no one would defend him if he actually made it public. After all, how is an image of a child being sexualized not child porn?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>