Google's gormless 'no pseudonym' policy

A week ago, I was stunned to discover that my entire Google account -- gmail, reader, blogger, Google documents, YouTube, Google Plus (G+), etc. -- was suddenly suspended because their system "perceived a violation."

Violation? Me? Wha?? I was completely baffled.

Whilst I tried to learn what the problem was, this suspension created a communication blackout that affected my entire life. In the end, I was forced to give up my telephone number to Google so they could text me a numerical code that I could use to unlock my gmail account.

Fortunately, at this point in my life, I have a personal telephone number -- which I eventually and reluctantly provided to them in exchange for renewed access to my gmail account. But my G+ account remains locked and inaccessible, even now.

What horrible violation had I committed that deserved this gestapo-like behaviour? Had I defrauded someone using my pseudonym? Emailed nude photographs to children? Threatened someone? Was I stalking someone or hacking into strangers' voicemails?

No, it was none of these egregious transgressions. It was something far worse.

I used my pseudonym for my Google profile.

According to Google spokesperson, Katie Watson, real names are required for Google Profiles, and this profile is the requisite for people to establish their G+ accounts. And my online Google profile, which I used to get my G+ account, is pseudonymous.

But in the same paragraph, Google goes on to state that "Google Profiles requires you to use the name that you commonly go by in daily life."

But my pseudonym -- the name in my profile, the name I publish under here and elsewhere -- is the name that I "commonly go by in daily life."

It might surprise the white men employed by Google to learn that people use pseudonyms for a variety of legitimate reasons -- reasons that may not be mutually exclusive. They may be trying to evade a stalker or harasser; they might wish to keep their social life separate from their professional life; they may be seeking help about a medical condition that they wish to keep private; they might be a political activist or dissident, or they may have lost a job because they write a blog, for example. Perhaps they've used a pseudonym throughout most of their lives and are not well known by their real life name; they might use a pseudonym to distinguish themselves from the other two dozen people sharing the same name and city; or maybe their real name is too long, unpronounceable for most English-speakers or doesn't use Latinised letters. Or maybe they just plain hate their real name. I am sure there are plenty of other non-criminal reasons for using a pseudonym that I've not mentioned here, but regardless of the reason(s), these are personal. These reasons are not the business of Google, nor of any large faceless corporate giant.

I spent most of the day using Google -- ironically enough -- to research the legality of pseudonym use. In that search, I learned that in most of the English-speaking world, a person is entitled to establish and use a pseudonym if this use does not have fraudulent intent and is not meant to evade any legal obligation. Additionally, under United States common law (not sure about other countries), once a person begins using a particular name "consistently, openly and non-fraudulently, without interfering with other people's rights", it becomes a legal name. Further, pseudonym use is also permitted for legal and business activities, activities that include (but are not limited to) filing taxes, filing a lawsuit -- or even appearing in court using their pseudonym.

But even though three English-speaking countries recognise my pseudonym use as legitimate, this isn't good enough for Google.

From what I see, this "no pseudonym" policy is nothing more than corporate double-speak, particularly in view of Google's claim that its new social network, G+, emphasizes personal control over information and sharing. Yet this corporation dictates what information its users must share, regardless of the reasons they may wish to keep it secret. Despite their fancy words, Google's policies and behaviour demonstrates their empty promises, revealing that they remain completely ignorant of what online social life is really all about.

Like it or not, the fact is that many people routinely use pseudonyms, and online pseudonyms typically feed over into real life. As I've already stated, my pseudonym is the name that I go by in daily life, and further, my pseudonym IS my identity. I've published under this pseudonym. I've copyrighted documents and photographs under this pseudonym. I've signed contracts and received payments, email and snailmail addressed to this pseudonym in several cities in two countries. I've given lectures at several universities in several cities in several countries under this pseudonym, and I use it on my business cards. Even my spouse refers to me by my pseudonym, more often than not.

But I am not the only person who has discovered that access to their entire Google-life (reader, blogger, YouTube, G+, etc.) was unexpectedly disabled. In fact, some people's Google-lives were suspended even though they established their profiles using their real names because someone decided their real name sounded like a pseudonym.

So how does Google decide if a name is real? Apparently, they use a highly technical process where someone employed by the Google corporate machine guesses whether a name sounds like a pseudonym and they then purge these accounts. So using this rationale, the Alice Coopers, Woody Allens, and George Elliots of the world are "okay", whilst the Boy Georges, Madonnas and GrrlScientists clearly are not.

Oh, gotta point out that some of my friends -- not sayin' who -- who write under a pseudonym still have their G+ accounts.

Worse, after they've determined the real "meat space" name associated with a profile, keeping it private doesn't appear to be an option (but I can't verify this because, you know, I can't access my account). Besides, in view of previous Facebook and Google privacy "mistakes", why would any rational, thinking person believe that G+ will be immune to such "errors" in the future?

Despite my criticisms, I like what I've seen of G+ so far. For starters, it's intuitive to use. As an early-adopter with a continuous online presence since 1990, I have been part of many online communities and I am well versed in the evolution of social media. I've relied on social media to connect with many people around the world -- people I would never have met otherwise. (This includes my spouse.) But I now feel increasingly isolated from my community because my colleagues, friends, blog readers, bird pals, twitter followers -- indeed, my entire community -- are rapidly migrating to G+, a place that I am locked out of because Google doesn't like my name.

Like thousands of others who were suddenly purged from G+, I am currently disputing Google's ridiculous and inconsistent pseudonym policy, but they have not responded. Even though Google claims they respond in 24 hours, I've waited longer than that -- just as other people probably have.

At this point, I am deeply saddened by this narrow-minded big-brother corporate policy that places some people at greater risk than others, simply because they wish to build or maintain their online community under their pseudonym.

.

email: grrlscientist@gmail.com
twitter: @GrrlScientist

.

NOTE: added 27 July 2011 in comments (requoted here to make sure you all read it):

i want to apologise to my readers who were offended by my "white men" remark in this piece. my intent for making that remark was to point out that people-of-privilege have a particular set of characteristics, experiences and points-of-view that may not be shared widely by the rest of us. historically, these people-of-privilege are, and nearly always have been, white men. i am aware that "not all white men are (insert your favourite naughty word here)" and i apologise for insinuating otherwise.

my remark also alluded to the fact that i've only ever had to explain my pseudonym use to older white men. these experiences do not mean that all women, people with colour or younger white men automatically "get it", but it does mean that i've never met these people.

i've been talking with a number of (self-identified) white men yesterday, most of the night, and this morning about this. most said they understood my point without having me elaborate whilst some others did not. this confusion is the motivation for my apology. i appreciate that some people may feel alienated or unfairly attacked because a remark i made was more easily interpreted in a different (insulting) manner than i intended it. so to those people out there whom i have offended, i offer my sincere apology and i hope that we can still be friends.