Varna’s Mind

16Share

When you’re a huge web company, and you choose a name for something as important as a new programming language, you should take great care to investigate whether the name is already taken.

Apparently, Google (

) didn’t do that. Frank McCabe, a developer working at San Jose, Calif.-based Starview Technologies, has created a programming language and named it Go years ago. In fact, he published a research paper about it in 2004, and devoted an entire book to it, named “Lets Go” in 2007.

In an e-mail to Information Week, McCabe said he doesn’t own a trademark on the language, but he’s not happy about Google choosing the name Go nevertheless. “It takes a lot of effort to produce a reasonably well-designed language. I am concerned that the ‘big guy’ will end up steam-rollering over me. I do not have resources to invest in legal action; but do not intend to let Google keep the name without them being explicit that they are steam-rollering over us,” he says.

If the folks at Google who named the language didn’t know about the other “Go”, they were careless. If they knew about it and decided to name their language “Go” anyway, it sounds like a big company not caring much about the little guy. After all, how many names are taken when it comes to programming languages? Perhaps a couple hundred? Surely Google could have chosen another name.

Google hasn’t given a definitive answer to this problem yet. So far, their spokesman merely said they “recently became aware of the Go! issue and are now looking into the matter further.” But ignoring the issue definitely won’t go well with Google’s oft quoted mantra – “Don’t be evil”.

While the goal is noble and the benefits true, there is a long way between allocating everyone a number and the actual implementation and easy use of any ID system.

The best place to start is with mobile phone subscribers because they already have a device which can help but the choice of method is critical.
The costs should be no more than a few billion and then a few hundred million per year to run it.
I’d suggest a pilot scheme with mobile users and by the time the trial is completed the 300 million with mobile phones will have grown to 600 million plus.

Within perhaps 2-3 years and half the population could have mobile identity at little cost or change to existing data systems. Within 5 years the cost-benefit results would likely show that publicly subsidised mobile phone acquisition would save the government substantial operational and deployment costs and I could envisage that within 5 – 6 years every Indian could have both mobile ID and transactions.

The cost of collecting taxes and fees will be reduced and the opportunity to improve government services without increasing costs will be significant. Mobile banking and payments could be made available to even the poorest at reasonable cost.

There is more to identity than a number – the actual process is very important. The idea that ID is about a number is a strange concept – it is about the individual. That individual shouldn’t need to know or share a number to identify themselves.
In choosing an identity solution be mindful of the dignity of the individual and the process must not be confrontational and have levels of privacy.

The ID system needs to work person to person and not just person to government.

Think very carefully about the dignity of your identity solution – it will shape the way the population perceive government into the future.