Hey does anyone I know use Google Voice in a business environment.. In order to screen calls? If so, I would love to talk (Seattle area code) 934 9333.
I think I want two Google voice numbers.. One for personal and one for business.. And be able to screen calls from new clients.. So that I don’t get interrupted during the workday.
It seems like such a nice feature. But from this article.. It sounds like there are MAJOR problems in separating traffic between the two numbers.
I guess I need to have a bunch of different Google Account.. GMail accounts. Its just such a shame that Google had to kill their free products.. In order to CON people into using their Office Software. Seems completely worthy of antitrust investigations.
They got people hooked onto Gmail (with a custom domain) and then bundled that with Google Documents.
I have always loved MS Office.. And its a major shame that Google AND Microsoft killed their free offerings… So that they could charge people fifteen bucks a month for email service.
It blows my mind. That nobody can offer decent email with custom domains.. For a dollar per user per month.
I honesty. Sincerely. Am going to start relying on my GoDaddy Virtual Private Server to host my own email services. Seems ridiculous to me. But it is the only path forward.
Skybox can take photos from 500 miles up with a sub-one-meter resolution of the ground below. That isn’t not likely to sit well with privacy activists who already don’t trust Google. What does the right to be forgotten mean when Google can always see you anyway?
Skybox’s pedigree likely won’t help assuage anyone who likes a good conspiracy theory. According to Samuels, one of the company’s co-founders, John Fenwick, had previously worked as as a liaison in Congress for the National Reconnaissance Office, “the ultrasecret spy agency that manages much of America’s most exotic space toys.” A major investor had worked as an intelligence officer in the French army, while its CEO held previous jobs that brought him into close contact with the Department of Defense.
That’s not to suggest there’s anything nefarious about Skybox or its intentions. It’s hard to get anything into space without entreé into government and military circles. But Skybox CEO Tom Ingersoll told Samuels that the government is interested in his company’s imagery. “In the end,” Samuels writes, “the government will likely commandeer some of Skybox’s imaging capabilities under terms similar to those imposed on other vendors.” With Google now involved, that begins to sound a lot like the NSA commandeering the internet servers to spy on U.S. citizens.
Skybox or Skynet?
Even if a network of high-powered imaging satellites could give Google the power to track an individual from space, it probably wouldn’t. Setting aside any legal or moral constraints, there’s just no percentage in it. Monetizable insights of the kind that would interest Google or companies willing to pay Google for access to that data are derived from observing patterns and populations, not individuals. As geeks of all varieties are fond of pointing out, n=1 is a terrible sample size.
If Google finds ways of using these satellites that ends up making users’ lives more interesting and convenient, most people are unlikely to object, just like revelations of NSA surveillance haven’t exactly dented Gmail’s market share. But people may find the idea of Google looking down from the heavens on their physical selves more discomfiting than peering through their browsers at their virtual personas. After all, putting an all-seeing Google eye in space gives a whole new meaning to “do not track.”
Brin told the audience at boutique Bay Area tech conference Recode that he was “kind of a weirdo” and that, “it was probably a mistake for me to be working on anything tangentially related to social to begin with.”
It runs in stark contrast to when Brin told the world how he came to love Google+, and admitted to taking a direct hand in its design at the October 2011 Web 2.0 conference.
Seated onstage next to Brin, Vic Gundotra told the audience that its “design owes a lot to Brin’s vision.”
Brin’s statement comes only one month after Gundotra quietly quit the company, and without explanation.
Google+ broke our trust
Thanks to one crystalline moment of Google+, it became clear that a company we trusted couldn’t be trusted at all.
The Google+ so-called “real name” policy can best be described as a confusing, velvet-glove-cast-in-iron policy where users of Google+ are required to use their birth or government ID names — and when flagged, must prove it, and submit official documentation as proof.
Ex-Google employees were deleted. Writers, musicians, programmers and more were deleted. Editing your name raised suspicion and still risks getting you flagged.
“Ex-Google employees were deleted. Writers, musicians, programmers and more were deleted. Editing your name raised suspicion and still risks getting you flagged.”
Google+ remained silent while Nymwars raged through the headlines — until it told press it would allow “alternate names” — which was incorrectly reported (at first) as if Google had begin to allow pseudonyms. This was shown to be untrue when Google told ZDNet that “nicknames” had to be proven with your real name and government ID.
In the background, Google+ began “unifying” people’s identities (combining its background matching of users names and profiles) in Android address books.
For LGBT, political dissidents, activists and at-risk people everywhere, Google’s little Google+ project became a loaded gun pointed right at anyone whose privacy is what keeps them alive.
Users found out in January 2014 when Google+ force-integrated chat and SMS into “hangouts” in the Android 4.4 “KitKat” update.
At-risk users were disproportionately affected, most especially transgender people who needed to keep their identities separate for personal safety and employment reasons.
One woman was outed to a co-worker when she texted him, and risked losing her employment.
Google’s response was that her outing was “user error” — Google blamed her, the user for not understanding the new, confusing integration.
Google’s war on anonymity imploded with this move to force Google+ — and its unwanted “real name” policy — onto YouTube users. The outraged YouTube community’s anti-Google+ petition currently has over 239,000 signatures. The co-founder of YouTube slammed Google for forcing users to use Google+.
Google’s problems with Google+ identity control malfeasance became pop culture fodder.
Google Search is no longer the clean, high-performance tool we once relied on and admired — now it’s a fetid stew of Google+-littered, screwed up mystery-mechanics, running under the misguided assumption that anyone and everyone only wants more of their own location, their connections, Google’s clumsily guessed interests, and Google+ favoritism in the results served back to them.
Now we’re filled with a sense of dread with every Google change, every Google product release reminding us that we’re being tracked and recorded, and we’re held captive by “one account, all of Google” — all with Google+ at its infected core.
Well, Brin said he wanted to “change the world”
Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt told National Public Radio digital editor Andy Carvin in 2011 that if people don’t want to use their real names, then they shouldn’t use Google+. He explained that Google should be considered “an identity service” with Google+ as the foundation across all its products.
I don’t want to think that controlling our own identities doesn’t matter to Google; or it’s as if to Google we are the faulty parts of its machine.
Or that we are just Google+ with a body vaguely attached. Or to Google, the problems are our own faults, and any calls for respect or privacy in a painful world are just annoying to Google, which has better things to do, like terrify us with the privacy nightmare of Google Glass and making bulk data consolidators’ jobs of cataloging our personally identifying information easier.
Google is not just a company. It maintains infrastructure for what have become vital services: it is a utility. And Google+ had made it so we can’t refuse, or opt-out of, Google.
This is something you’ll only start to see if you try to avoid having a Google+ profile.
Many people now use Google+ without even knowing it, through its non-consensual cross-posting on YouTube, Android photo integration, the takeover of Google Talk, and the infinite ways in which people every day make Google+ profiles without realizing it. Want to make a comment on a Google product (even if you don’t know it’s a Google product)? Google makes you a Google+ profile.
We originally chose to use Google’s services because out of all the fly-by-night startups, companies and social networks, Google was one whose infrastructure we always felt we could really rely on (even if we don’t always agree with their politics, or policies).
The madness of Google+’s pathos to saturate and force people to be units of data subsumed the originators and handmaidens of its critical failures — which, now that Google and Google+ are one, have become Google’s legacy.
With Google+, it became clear that we were all little more than webs of flesh spun over packages of saleable data.
If only someone could have stepped in and course-corrected Google+.
Oh, right. Someone could have.
The same someone that just told the world, “heh, oops” and walked away to go retreat back into himself, and play with his cars.
The internet is not a virtual world anymore; the internet makes our life a connected life. So should we abandon anonymity? Let’s take the problem from a different point of view: in the “unconnected” life, you can publish and talk anonymously if you want to. It’s not easy, or usual, but it’s sometimes necessary, because there can’t be democracy without protected places. When we vote, we need to be anonymous, when you criticize a regime (even a democratic one), an institution, or a company you sometimes need to be anonymous to protect yourself (especially when you work there). Transparency sometimes needs a little “non-transparence,” which means anonymous talk, to help information emerge. In real life, some tools are available to protect our identities and generate those private areas that are essential to a balanced life and society. We need to find these new private areas, these new “secret squares,” for the connected life. But, as in real life, anonymity has to be the exception, not the rule.
So, yes, the question of “real names” is outdated. The real question should be: now that Facebook, Twitter and Google+ have become public spaces where people can meet to share or to protest, is there a danger in housing theses public places in the exclusive hands of private companies? If “Internet” is a new country, then who will protect freedom in its public places ?