Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook's New Privacy Controls: Still Broken

Posted by Soulskill on from the hey-let's-try-this-thing dept.

itwbennett writes "Blogger Dan Tynan was one of the recipients of the new privacy controls that Facebook promised last week. The bad news: They still don't work, and may even be worse than before. 'Using Facebook's new improved privacy controls, you can tag someone else in photo and then keep them from seeing it,' says Tynan. 'It's pretty simple; just change the sharing option so they don't see what you posted. So if you want to tag a picture of some jerk with your friend's name on it and make it Public, everyone on Facebook will be able to see it except one — the person whose name is on it.'"

142 comments

  1. Pointing at someone else's problems... by damn_registrars · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    ... don't make your own go away. Slashdot code is still broken in several important places currently...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by Literaphile · · Score: 1

      ... except Slashdot didn't write this article.

    2. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 0

      To defend an already-ridiculous position for the sake of logical rigour: technically, Slashdot accepted it.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by ge7 · · Score: 1

      I don't see how it is supposedly "broken". It works as intended, giving control to the user. You can just as well go out in the street, put up a picture of someone and write his name on it. It's not like you get some automatic notification about it, unless someone tells you about it. It's just a tool, and you can use tools for both good and bad. Or with a slashdot analogy, are we going to start blaming BitTorrent as a technology because it can be used for both illegal downloading and for legit things like downloading Blizzard updates?

    4. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by MichaelKristopeit501 · · Score: -1
      you obviously don't see how it's broken... a picture put on on the street can certainly be seen by the person whose name was put on it.

      you're an idiot.

    5. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      And if you subscribe to the popular theory that the editors are just poorly coded shell scripts you can bring it all the way back to CmdrTaco!

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by ge7 · · Score: 1

      Well ok. I can also put up a password-protected website that I only give access to certain people. I post shit about some person on there. Is it Apache Software Foundations fault, or my fault?

    7. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by kakyoin01 · · Score: 1

      This submission is in light of a new Facebook feature that went live rather recently, so the it's actually quite fitting. The title of this submission is most likely a summary of the featured blogger. What's wrong with an opinion or two here and there? I see 'em all the time, yep, even in /. submissions.

      Actually I take that back, I see them all the time.

      --
      The more you know, the more you have to say and the more you should listen.
    8. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      No, but you can't put up a website visible to everyone in the world except the one person who you are defaming in your website.

    9. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1

      Slashdot code is still broken in several important places currently...

      And if my non-technical friends and family put their entire lives on Slashdot, I would be more concerned about Slashdot's security bugs.

    10. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by MichaelKristopeit501 · · Score: -1
      you can't "also" do anything, as your original suggestion was ignorantly flawed. you have done nothing valid.

      relying on a 3rd party which allows public access, and taking personal responsibility for your own actions on your own property have absolutely nothing in common.

      you're an idiot.

    11. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by ge7 · · Score: 1

      While ignoring things like ip or geo-based filtering, it's not like the person will somehow immediately find out about it. Most likely he would only come across it when someone points it out to him.

      It's still just a tool. You can use tools for both good and bad. Just because it's Facebook I'm sure most of slashdot will attack it, as that's common thing here. But people should be consistent about their sayings - if you say "but it's just a tool" for one thing, you should hold the same line when it's something you don't like about.

    12. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by eln · · Score: 2

      Don't be absurd. Everyone knows CmdrTaco can't code.

    13. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's taking control away from the user. In the past I had my account setup so that people could not tag me in images at all, no exceptions.

      Now anybody can tag me in an image on their profile. I can choose whether or not that get's listed on MY profile, but I cannot control where I'm tagged on other's profiles, and am not necessarily even aware of it.

      Here's the actual text of the current options:
      Profile Review: Approve or reject posts you're tagged in before they go on your profile. Note: You can still be tagged. This controls whether tags go on to your profile.

      Profile Visibility: Decide who sees posts you're tagged in on your profile after you approve them.

      As soon as Google gets Google+ working with Apps accounts I'm outa here.

    14. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by Baikala · · Score: 1

      Nice trolling attempt but I think mr. Cmdr To hit Armor Class 0 is quiting cold turkey for the moment.

      --
      16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
    15. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by Baikala · · Score: 1

      So they aren't? Why?, this site has journals you know. Slashdot is the only social network you need. What do you need pictures for?

      --
      16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
    16. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1

      Why aren't they using Slashdot for their social networking needs?

      Because of the security bugs mentioned above, of course!

  2. Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook not willing to give up the lack of privacy

    1. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Henceforth why I left:

      Hi Anonymous Coward,

      We have received a request to permanently delete your account. Your account has been deactivated from the site and will be permanently deleted within 14 days.

      If you did not request to permanently delete your account, please login to Facebook to cancel this request:

      https://www.facebook.com/login.php

      Thanks,
      The Facebook Team

  3. Perspective by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The majority of Facebook users do not seem to care about privacy, so for them this is probably not an issue for them.

    Some days I think those who don't care about their privacy are ahead of those of us that do. Privacy is dead, and they are not wasting effort fighting the tide.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    1. Re:Perspective by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 2

      That's the thing. This isn't a "I don't care about privacy. Do whatever." This is Facebook answering to "I care about my privacy, I want to opt out" with the opting out only makes it looked like you opted out.

      This is a deceptive practice. This is like ordering a sandwich, asking them to hold the pickles and finding they just hid the pickles under the burger.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    2. Re:Perspective by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

      ...Some days I think those who don't care about their privacy are ahead of those of us that do. Privacy is dead, and they are not wasting effort fighting the tide.

      This, IMHO, is the party line that our corporate overlords want us to take. We don't need to do so and I, for one, refuse to bow down to the scumbags who want inside my underwear.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    3. Re:Perspective by LocalH · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Collect NotSanguine's underpants
      Step 2: ???
      Step 3: Profit!

      --
      FC Closer
    4. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are you hiding in your underwear that you don't want people to see? Is it WMD? pr0ns? skidmarks?

    5. Re:Perspective by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Mmmm... Delicious, forbidden, hidden pickles.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tits or gtfo.

    7. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you already succumbed into your cattle role.
      Nice for your masters. Nice for me when soon, I will be your master.

      But don't ever think your masters yourself (including me) would give up their privacy. Because they know extremely well that privacy is alive and extremely important.

      The thing is: They want to be the only ones. They want it to be a privilege instead of a right. And you fell right for it.

      Your "I" is already dead. You have stopped being an individual, and started being a fully merged part of a larger (social) body controlled by your master(s). You just haven't noticed it, and likely never will. Even when raped in the ass, you will say you actually wanted it all along.

      Have fun as a human centipede!

    8. Re:Perspective by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Some days I think those who don't care about their privacy are ahead of those of us that do. Privacy is dead, and they are not wasting effort fighting the tide.

      I think it's quite often that issues arise in which "most people" are on the side that in retrospect proves idiotic or wrong. Especially when it comes to rights. Maybe there's some cognitive dissonance going on, that people accept if one does not have a right already, they probably don't deserve it or need it. "Right to privacy? Well if you have nothing to hide, you have no need for privacy."

      Anyway, it hasn't stopped progress in the past. Facebook seems a very small hurdle to overcome compared to the barriers women's sufferage and civil rights activists were facing.

    9. Re:Perspective by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      Facebook is not the hurdle. The problem is that people willingly post everything in their life for all to freely see.

      If Facebook demanded that people post the crap they do, most would walk away in realizing their privacy was being compromised. But by making a forum where people can share with their friends, Facebook allows the same group of people to now share all of their intimate details.

      What is worse is that Facebook makes it easier for people to share about their friends as well. It is far too common to see coversations that take place in statuses that would be far better handled face-to-face.

      Facebook it not the problem. It is the stupidity of the masses that is the hurdle. You cannot opt out unless you get all of your "friends" to opt out of tagging you.

      People are morons about privacy. During boarding of a flight recently, the woman next to me had a lengthy conversation that included quite a bit of information that she should not have been broadcasting (she was not talking quietly). At one point she stated she wouldn't have this conversation at home because she didn't want to mother to overhear a private conversation!?! But she shared willingly with 20 or so strangers that couldn't help but overhear her.

      Same with Facebook. If I would have demanded the woman on the plane tell me even half of what she said, I am quite certain she would have called the police. However, by giving her the freedom to be stupid with her cell phone, she told everyone for free.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    10. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying the jews who got into the cattle cars without complaining were 'ahead' of those who decided to make a last stand when the purges came (even if the ultimate outcome was the same for all concerned).

    11. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You cannot opt out unless you get all of your "friends" to opt out of tagging you."

      I keep hearing this, but somehow, it has never happened to me, not even once, which leads me to think maybe people are exaggerating the problem here.

      Somehow I manage to go out and about with friends, to do things in public places, and not end up tagged in photos. How is it that i manage this, while other people claim to not be able to?

    12. Re:Perspective by quintin3265 · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone I agree with on the privacy issue. In 10 years, everyone will be recording every second of every day, and will be able to look back at their lives and be able to watch anything they ever did. The answer to privacy is simple: if you don't want pictures of you looking like an idiot to show up on facebook, then don't act like an idiot.

    13. Re:Perspective by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What are you hiding in your underwear that you don't want people to see? Is it WMD? pr0ns? skidmarks?

      It's much worse. It's a CD-R with pirated tracks on it.

      Of Justin Bieber, no less (yes, I understand that I have forfeited any hope of jury nullification by saying that). ~

    14. Re:Perspective by Bengie · · Score: 1

      +1 internet for Simpson's reference

    15. Re:Perspective by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Collect NotSanguine's underpants Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit!

      They just want in, they don't want the underwear. :)

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    16. Re:Perspective by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

      If not caring, not understanding, and not knowing were all the same, you'd be right. As it stands, facebook continues to monetize the mistakes and misunderstanding of the masses, mostly caused from how facebook works... Like a mousetrap really. Pure genius.

    17. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I manage to go out and about with friends, to do things in public places, and not end up tagged in photos. How is it that i manage this, while other people claim to not be able to?

      You are a jackass that people do not want to be around, and they would rather kill themselves than be in a photo with you.

    18. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man, are you living in a world where people don't take advantage of the other? fuck off.

    19. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, but...

      Speeding is against the law, as well. Do cops enforce it? Not unless you're 10 over because almost everyone is at least 2-5 above.

      It's too much work to analyze and fix something of this magnitude without having GRAVE punishments for violating it. There's profit to be had in violating privacy, so it's not going to be outlawed and enforced with any effective power.

      The violators will be picked on, one after another, here and there, peck, peck, tick, peck. The beat will go on until even federal prosecutors get sick of fighting it. Then, their minds will naturally gravitate toward finding reasons to promote it. There will be less work to do that way. :)

      I'm not a hater, I'm just saying Humans are Humans and they follow the trends (rules, if you will) of Human nature.

    20. Re:Perspective by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      They only want in because you're NotSanguine. If you were Sanguine they'd stay the hell out of your underpants.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  4. Facebook Privacy issues by PenquinCoder · · Score: 0

    Is not news. Its old, its broken, and it will never be properly fixed up to the standard that people expect. Get over it, or get off it.

    1. Re:Facebook Privacy issues by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Headline should be "Facebook: Still Facebook", but that wouldn't bring Slashdot revenues, because that's not news.

      Cut the head of the snake, the bully of the classroom, the hole of the ass, and Facebook might even start a slow drift towards good. I sooner expect more Zuckerbergs to serve there, though.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  5. But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    "Durrr, Facebook is bad."

    Meanwhile, Google is busy violating privacy in a way that even the Internet has no porn for, but pay no attention to that, hey? Not so long as Slashdot can find anything possible to whine about with regard to Facebook.

    And if we run out of Facebook whining, we'll drag up the corpse of Microsoft and blame them for everything, no doubt.

    1. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by snowgirl · · Score: 2

      Meanwhile, Google is busy violating privacy in a way that even the Internet has no porn for...

      I dispute this claim under Rule #34!

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Google is bad. Therefore, anything less bad must be good and/or can't be criticized!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by treeves · · Score: 1

      Yes, less bad is good.
      Thanks for that insight.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    4. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, Google is busy violating privacy in a way that even the Internet has no porn for...

      I dispute this claim under Rule #34!

      Er,

      Penis Good! Google Bad! ???

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If it could be worse, then that means the current situation must be good! A family member was murdered? Oh, please! Your entire family could've been murdered! Therefore, your current situation is a good thing.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by treeves · · Score: 1

      No, it's not "it could be worse", it's "this other actual thing IS worse."

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    7. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Which, of course, means that the thing that isn't as bad is actually good! "Worse," "good," and "bad" are subjective, anyway.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by treeves · · Score: 1

      No. If you have one choice, and it is "bad", whatever that means, then something comes along that is "better", then the coming into existence of the "better" alterantive is a "good" thing. It's quite simple really.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    9. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet always delivers.

    10. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by Calos · · Score: 1

      I'll draw and quarter you or simply shank you with a rusty spoon. Your choice. Still want to call the less bad option "good?"

      Good and bad are more toward the side of absolutes, not relativism. Being shanked is better than being slowly tortured to death. That doesn't make being shanked "good."

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    11. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by treeves · · Score: 1

      After this, either would be fine with me...

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    12. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by cforciea · · Score: 1

      Fine, the next time you are in a horrific car crash that causes you horrible burns and two leg amputations, remember that it is good because people die in car wrecks every day!

    13. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by treeves · · Score: 1

      I've never been in a horrific car crash, so the existence of a "next time" is not possible.
      But if it were to happen, I'd keep your comforting words in mind. Thanks.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    14. Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. by StandardAI · · Score: 1

      Google isn't bad, microsoft just spends a lot of money to make you believe so.

  6. Wow... that's by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow. That's not a tiny issue at all. This isn't just a privacy issue. That's a makes-it-really-easy-for-a jerk-to-fuck-someone-over issue. Take a picture of someone and photoshop in a bong and then do this. See how long it takes to get them fired. Anyone who looks at it will think that the individual is aware of and approves of the photo since they haven't removed the tag. This is a really bad issue. Calling this one a "privacy" issue totally misses the point. This is much more severe.

    1. Re:Wow... that's by prostoalex · · Score: 1

      Only your friends will see it.
      How is it different from photoshopping an image and then sending it around from your email address?

    2. Re:Wow... that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's great that they finally allow you to change the privacy settings of an existing post.

      however, in exchange for that, they also have also made the privacy settings said post visible to everyone who can read it.

    3. Re:Wow... that's by ctrl-c_ctrl-x · · Score: 1

      Maybe HR shouldn't take everything they find on google image search or Facebook as the word of the one true god. But that would be too simple.

    4. Re:Wow... that's by skiman1979 · · Score: 2

      I don't think that has anything to do with Facebook's privacy controls. Even if Facebook was entirely 100% open, no privacy controls at all, I could still photoshop a bong into your picture, post it on Facebook, and share it with your boss. The end result may very well be the same.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    5. Re:Wow... that's by makomk · · Score: 1

      The article claims that you can set it so that anyone in the world with a Facebook account (possibly even people without one?) can see it except the victim...

    6. Re:Wow... that's by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      But in the old privacy system, you would be notified of the tag, and could remove it. Now, however, you won't be notified, and you can't see the tag, meaning you also can't remove it. It'll be there forever. So this is very very bad. Oh yeah, and according to TFA you can tag absolutely anyone, not just friends. Hopefully it gets bad enough that people simply stop taking Facebook as credible. And maybe man will be on Mars in 5 years. Hey, one can hope, right?

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    7. Re:Wow... that's by Flozzin · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. I've never taken anything online seriously. I hate how its made into this huge deal, but after all its just online. I learned early on not to take much online seriously, but now we have forgotten that. Companies see everything online as a possible PR nightmare. Omg, someone made a youtube video about us!! BAD PR. No it will be forgotten in 2 seconds, and anyone that believes a youtube video is true or not completely one sided, probably devoid of any facts that make the poster look bad is also a retard. I guess its just too bad that alot of retards have power and money.

      --
      "Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
    8. Re:Wow... that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that has anything to do with Facebook's privacy controls. Even if Facebook was entirely 100% open, no privacy controls at all, I could still photoshop a bong into your picture, post it on Facebook, and share it with your boss. The end result may very well be the same.

      The key to the grand parents post was the sentence "Anyone who looks at it will think that the individual is aware of and approves of the photo since they haven't removed the tag." Now that facebook has these privacy controls and gives users the ability to untag themselves, having a picture tagged of you practically implies your approval of the photo.

    9. Re:Wow... that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a picture of someone and photoshop in a bong and then do this. See how long it takes to get them fired.

      Oh, so that is what happened to CmdrTaco!

    10. Re:Wow... that's by prostoalex · · Score: 2

      It's the same as posting an image with privacy set to "Everyone" and providing an exception to specific users.
      This is possible today.
      However, with new privacy settings one has to approve other people's photo tags, so this photo will never show up on taggee's profile.

    11. Re:Wow... that's by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      Take a picture of someone and photoshop in a bong and then do this. See how long it takes to get them fired.

      Or worse, their boss will want to hang out.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    12. Re:Wow... that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in the old privacy system, you would be notified of the tag, and could remove it.

      Only if they linked the tag to your profile. You can tag it with plain text, in which case it doesn't ever notify.

    13. Re:Wow... that's by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Seems rather trivial to find out who their friends are and then check their profiles for pictures of the person you're looking for. Sounds like this only makes it a skosh harder to find said pictures.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  7. Facebook is never going to respect your privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ever.

    The most you will get is a dog and pony show designed to fool the fools.

    This is Facebook's equivalent of your bank telling you that your call is very important to them, please hold 90 minutes and an outsourced heavily accented rep will be right with you.

    If you want any shred of privacy or dignity then get off Facebook and stop interacting with Facebook.

    Facebook is built on the idea that people are datapoints to be cataloged, analyzed, and sold not just to the highest bidder, but to every bidder who wants to monetize you.

    Facebook is an interactive consumer profiling application, not a communications protocol.

    1. Re:Facebook is never going to respect your privacy by MrMatto · · Score: 1

      The problem is that even if I do manage to get off Facebook, there is nothing to stop someone from tagging me in inappropriate photos. They can tag me in any photo they wish, set it to public and if I do not have an account then I can't do anything about it. If I have a Facebook account, at least I can delete the tagged photos one at a time as they crop up. Still annoying, but more do-able.

    2. Re:Facebook is never going to respect your privacy by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      When people tag photos with my name or pet aliases, there is no auto-linking to any profile because none exist. As an added bonus, FB users searching for my names find nothing, even though my relatives tag me in pictures they snapped of me.

      DISCLAIMER: I've never been a member, so this may be an edge case for never-members. Your milage as a victim of "once-enslaved, always enslaved" may vary. You poor souls. ;-)
      I guess the whole chinese "No pictures! That machine will suck out my soul" will become popular again.

    3. Re:Facebook is never going to respect your privacy by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      So don't give your consent to be photographed. I could be wrong and it may only apply to professional photographers, but I'm of the understanding that a person needs your signed written consent to use/publish an image bearing your likeness. If they didn't have your consent you should be able to legally get it taken down or at least untagged and disassociated from you.

      Or you could just take the proactive approach and just not get into inappropriate situations where it is possible you will be photographed. I understand that shit happens, but a little due diligence goes a long way sometimes.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  8. Not broken at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what if you can create a link to somebody's profile on a picture? If that wasn't allowed, I could just post a comment that says this photo is of Person XYZ, see http://www.facebook.com/personxyz for their profile. It's really no different. Just another article trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

  9. Best Interest by mfh · · Score: 1, Redundant

    It's not in Facebook's best corporate interest to follow privacy rules. Therefore, it's not in our best interest to use Facebook.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Best Interest by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      It's not in Facebook's best corporate interest to follow privacy rules. Therefore, it's not in our best interest to use Facebook.

      Your completely sound logic with a decent level of intelligence is awesome. That's why it won't work ;)

      Stupidity, ignorance, and drama always create more of a flow pattern.

  10. Facebook Still Broken! by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 2

    This just in: Water is still wet! The Sahara is still hot! Politicians are still lying!

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    1. Re:Facebook Still Broken! by Isarian · · Score: 0

      This just in: Water is still wet! The Sahara is still hot! Politicians are still lying!

      This just in: Facebook is still lying!

    2. Re:Facebook Still Broken! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      This just in: Water is still wet! The Sahara is still hot! Politicians are still lying!

      What???? Politicians are STILL LYING?

      My mom told me last week that there was a press statement years ago that said it officially didn't happen! :>

    3. Re:Facebook Still Broken! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a very subtle difference between "officially didn't happen" and "didn't happen officially".

  11. Except by prostoalex · · Score: 1

    The tagged person needs to approve that tag first. Only then his friends would discover the photo via taggee's profile.

    The photo would indeed be visible to poster's friends, but he could've mentioned the person's name (without the tag and with whatever custom privacy she chose) to begin with.

    1. Re:Except by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0

      That's crazy talk. Waiting for someone to approve something would take so much of everyone's PRECIOUS time that they would just DIE waiting for it!!! OMG OMG!!!

      I wish I were exaggerating that statement from the crap that goes on all day.

    2. Re:Except by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I don't see the problem with that. Facebook is making your profile private. You are allowed to control who sees what in it. Anyone who wants to see things in your profile needs your permission. If you also happen to use that to persecute people, that's your problem, not Facebook's.

    3. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that "approve photo tags" is OFF by default.

    4. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "mine" to begin with. It's random friend A tagging blair1q for his random friend B to see. I haven't run his tests, but the claim is that your intervention is not needed, though you expect to be a man-in-the-middle with a chance to short-circuit the operation. After all, don't we have an assumed right to own our pictures?

      In real life, this just creates lots of "destroy those embarrassing tapes right now!!" from old girlfriends and such.

    5. Re:Except by prostoalex · · Score: 1

      Nope https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=privacy&ref=mb

    6. Re:Except by prostoalex · · Score: 1

      This is his picture, not yours.
      What difference does it make whether he tags blair1q in it, or writes something like "Look at this blair1q guy making a complete opposite of gentleman of himself" without tag?

  12. Hey, it's all cool, yo. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    I can't say I'm right and I can't say I'm wrong... but what I smell (knee-jerk reaction) is a nice little change made quickly and simply with a nifty little "feature" instead of "bug":

    Post crap, don't allow one of your friends to see it, have others see it (who are also friends with the one who can't), have friends jabber with friends and start mini-conflicts..... PROFIT! More time on the 'book means more ad hits. Virtual social world - priceless.

    Eh? Eh?

    1. Re:Hey, it's all cool, yo. by LocalH · · Score: 1

      You forgot a step before profit... "???"

      --
      FC Closer
    2. Re:Hey, it's all cool, yo. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      $#!+ !!!!!

      You didn't copyright that yet, did ya? :>

  13. In Soviet Russia..... by d.the.duck · · Score: 1

    Facebook controls your privacy.....no wait....

    --
    Where does the signature go?
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the joke should go something like this:

      "Facebook privacy controls YOU!"

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia..... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0

      I heard over in Russia they still do a weird thing that isn't really acceptable here...

      I've heard they like... uh.... I can't even pronounce the words but I'll give it a shot..... They 'talk to people face-to-face, in-person'. Whew. It's so hard to do!!!!!!

      My brain hurts.

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia Privacy Facebook's YOU!!!

    4. Re:In Soviet Russia..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, book hits you in face... no wait...

      In Soviet Russia you get entertained from face reflected in vacuum TV tube because is no power. Da. Is good. Soviet FaceBook. Not quite as narcissistic as US FaceBook, but we try.

  14. You don't say? by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    Facebook still has broken privacy controls? That's crazy talk, next you're going to be telling me the sky is blue!

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:You don't say? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0

      Facebook still has broken privacy controls? That's crazy talk, next you're going to be telling me the sky is blue!

      If I told you I knew it was a different color, one that you've never heard of before, would you pay me for that information? Oh, and for a little more you can get the properties of TheWorld(tm) that control that color; nobody but you will know!

      Oh.. and make sure you give me all of your personal identification, including SSN, bank card information, phone numbers, addresses, everything.

      It's uhh.... for tax and um, security reasons and will not be used for any other PurPose(tm). :->

      Ahh, I crack myself up. If only it were further from the crap that happens.

  15. Not broken by formfeed · · Score: 1

    Facebook's New Privacy Controls: Still Broken

    It isn't broken.
    "Not working" isn't the same as "broken"

  16. Step backward by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the previous version of Facebook, you had the option of not allowing anyone to tag you. I just spent a few minutes poking around the new controls - that option is nowhere to be found now. So, yeah, definitely a step backward.

    Thing is, I really HATE tagging in Facebook, and had it disabled for my profile. It's not that I mind people identifying others in photos - but that's not what most people use it for. Most people (in my circle of acquaintance, anyway) seem to use it just to get someone to look at a photo - they'll add a bunch of name tags, even though none of those people are in the picture! It's ludicrous.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Step backward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook privacy settings aren't your problem - your jerk-ass friends are your problem.

    2. Re:Step backward by prostoalex · · Score: 1

      Now everybody can tag (which is no different then mentioning you in text in captions to their photos), but not every tag will automatically post to your profile.
      You have to approve others' tags for them to go on your profile, and for your friends to discover them.

    3. Re:Step backward by dmomo · · Score: 2

      I have mine set so that i'm the only one who can see tags of me. So, people can tag me, but no one else sees it. That's even better than not allowing tagging, because the tagger doesn't have to know it's useless, and you will still get emails when they tag you, so you can stay on top of things.

      That option looks to still be there.

    4. Re:Step backward by eyenot · · Score: 1

      I just went into all these new privacy settings last night. I found exactly that option (not to be tagged) and verified that it was still as before -- set to not allowed. Nothing changed, in other words. What are you smoking?

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    5. Re:Step backward by dmomo · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong. This may not be working as described as of the latest updates. The "don't post to my profile" option is there, but not the "who can see tags of me".

    6. Re:Step backward by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I just went into all these new privacy settings last night. I found exactly that option (not to be tagged) and verified that it was still as before -- set to not allowed. Nothing changed, in other words. What are you smoking?

      If you went in last night, I'm betting your profile hadn't actually been migrated yet (mine didn't happen until this morning). In any case, since you state it's still there - it would've been actually helpful to point out where you found it. That would settle the question, once and for all - it'd be readily apparent whether you were describing the old setup or the new.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:Step backward by crossmr · · Score: 1

      It's right there:
      "Who can see photos and posts in which I am tagged on my profile?"
      Go to tags, and profile visibility

  17. What it is by ears_d · · Score: 1

    Facebook users should always keep in mind that they are the product. not the consumer.

    1. Re:What it is by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Better is: Facebook users should always keep in mind that they are the consumer. Not the customer.

  18. Two steps forward, one step back. by doctormetal · · Score: 1

    Every time Facebook announces a change in their privacy stuff the change is utterly retarded. People start complaining about it and Facebook steps down a bit claiming they listen to the users. The end result: Facebook get what they want. It is just simple: cross the line, back down a little and you've moved it a little.

    note that I have a Facebook account but the things I share there are not private, everybody may see them.

  19. Turn on tag review by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    If you turn on tag review, items you're tagged in don't appear on Facebook until you review and approve them. You can also turn on profile review, and set profile visibility to friends only. If you set those things appropriately and the person trying to tag you also tries to block you from seeing what they've tagged you in, they paint themselves into a corner: if you can't see it you can't review and approve it, and if you don't approve it it's not visible to anyone.

    That said, the new settings feel to me like they give me less control over what my name's attached to.

    1. Re:Turn on tag review by johncandale · · Score: 1

      If you turn on tag review, items you're tagged in don't appear on Facebook until you review and approve them. You can also turn on profile review, and set profile visibility to friends only. If you set those things appropriately and the person trying to tag you also tries to block you from seeing what they've tagged you in, they paint themselves into a corner: if you can't see it you can't review and approve it, and if you don't approve it it's not visible to anyone.

      yep.

      Sorry /. like it or not, the new facebook system is actually a improvement. They could do more, but you have to admit it's a improvement

      Otherwise you are just a partisan non-thinking tool. Like a democrat who lives to cheer their team, so if the republications do something they normally would like, they still hate on it because republication=bad democrat=good. And that is the worse sort of tool you can be. Also I'm not clicking on this knee-jerk reactionary blog and giving him page hits.

      I'll say it again, this is a huge improvement, deal with it fanboys.

    2. Re:Turn on tag review by McDrewbie · · Score: 1

      no, they just don't appear in YOUR profile until you approve it. It will still appear in the tagger's profile. And since you probably share friends with the tagger, those friends are likely to see it in that person's profile.

    3. Re:Turn on tag review by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      How is this any different from going on ANY social network and saying "Bob sucks"?

      Yes, all of your friends will see it, and some of those will be Bob's friends. And yes, you can even hide the statement from Bob.

      And yes, maybe it's even a photo of Bob doing something he shouldn't be.

      But again, how is this any different from Google+ or WordPress or even Slashdot?

      --
      -David
    4. Re:Turn on tag review by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      Beging tagged in a comment trumps any privacy settings that the poster selected.

      If Andy metions Bob in a post, and sets the post so that everyone can see it except Bob, even if Andy and Bob are not friends, Bob will see it because he is tagged in it.

      As soon as Bob untags himself, he can no longer see it. It will remain on Andy's profile, but no longer linked to Bob.

      And at that point, it's no different than anything else on the internet.

      --
      -David
  20. "Facebook" "Privacy" Controls" by tekrat · · Score: 1

    These words don't mean what you think they mean, especially when they are in the same sentence.

    There are *no* "privacy controls" at facebook, at least, not for the user base for which facebook has shown time and again, it has utter contempt for. Facebook cares about one thing only: Money, and to that end, you are a monetization data point, you are a borg drone and nothing more.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  21. Possibly Related Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was tagged in a bunch of photos but was never notified of this, I just saw them show up under photos of me. I had no issue with any of the photos it was just strange that I didn't get notified.

  22. facebook, enabling dick moves by waddgodd · · Score: 2

    I've seen some pretty dick moves in my day, and tagging a photo with someone else's name, then hiding the evidence from them is pretty much up there. This is the kind of move you make if you wish to terminate a friendship with extreme prejudice. Therefore I expect to see its application almost immediately, in accordance with the Greater Internet Fuckwad theory.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
  23. The Unsationalized Truth by DavidD_CA · · Score: 2

    This post is completely wrong. Here's why:

    The new Privacy Controls are very easy to figure out. Just click "Account" and "Privacy".

    You get a few menus, like Tagging, Apps, Block Lists, etc. Each one brings up very simple menu items each with a description.

    If you click on the one for tags, you can easily require your own approval for anyone that tags you. You can also set who is allowed to see items that you're tagged in (everyone, friends of friends, just friends, or a custom list of people).

    And here's the best part: even if you have the tag approval feature turned off, anyone who tags you that is not currently a friend will ALWAYS require your approval before the tag is published.

    So the only way the OP situation is correct is if 1) you are already friends with the jerk who posted the photo, 2) you manually approve the tag OR you have the setting set so that you trust all your friends, and 3) the person looking at the photo is allowed to see the photo based on your preference for tagged content (and "everyone" is not the default).

    --
    -David
    1. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by McDrewbie · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension is something you lack. :Profile Review controls whether you have to manually approve posts you're tagged in before they go on your profile. When you have a post to review, the Pending Posts tab will appear on your profile. Note: You can still be tagged. This controls whether tags go on to your profile." The important part is"on your profile" Nothing stops the tag from appearing on the profile of the person that posted the picture,

    2. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by Christoph · · Score: 1

      That makes sense.

      I would also agree with the logic further up; even if the article is correct, this is the same as a malicious lie about you being circulated, behind your back, before the internet. At least now, you can use the same internet to check the credibility/reputation of the source of the lie versus the subject of the lie.

      I was told a judge once instructed a jury as follows: when an attorney is grilling a witness, you get to decide if the attorney impeached the witness, or impeached themselves (by making baseless insinuations).

      --
      www.cgstock.com
    3. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      While you're wrong that I lack reading comprehension (and thank you for that baseless libel spewage), you're right that friends of the jerk could still see the image that I was tagged in.

      And so what?

      People have been able to post images of people, and say things, since the beginning of the internet.

      How does this relate to privacy? And how would you propose Facebook stop it?

      --
      -David
    4. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      "and so what" is exactly the point. if you don't lack reading comprehension you absolutely lack any kind of creative thinking that could put you in someone else's shoes and consider what might happen to someone else. also, empathy (the trait that keeps you from being considered a sociopath) would actually have you consider what your own experience would be like if it happened to you, and also care about someone else's situation regardless of whether it could happen to you. for example, i don't need to be a woman to consider the pain of childbirth and realize such a person is entitled to rights, such as whether or not to receive an epidural or even have the child at home with a midwife instead of a hospital with nurses.

      to ask the 3 questions in your post you'd have to be a really dim-witted, self-centered, apathetic moron. please kill yourself, you're breathing my air.

      i'd really love to see you try and sue McDrewbie for libel, too. obviously the one and only, the inimitable, David D from ... from ... California? Canada? ... has had his reputation tarnished far beyond repair and is suffering beneath the merciless weight of McDrewbie's defamation. asshole.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    5. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are suggesting that you have the ability to approve tags anywhere, and prevent them from appearing for other people? In fact, I don't believe that's the case. It says on the Tagging controls you refer to Profile Review: Approve or reject posts you're tagged in before they go on your profile. Note: You can still be tagged. This controls whether tags go on to your profile.

      Basically you can only ever control the visibility of items on your own profile. The scenario outlined seems to work as it was described.

    6. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      Wow dude, really?

      My point is that Facebook has done what they reasonably can to eliminate this as a privacy matter unique to their network.

      But hey, I'm sucking up your air now... so I'll just shut up and kill myself. My bad.

      --
      -David
    7. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > My point is that Facebook has done what they
      > reasonably can to eliminate this as a privacy matter
      > unique to their network.

      My point is that Facebook has done what they
      reasonably can to eliminate privacy. This is unique
      to their network.

      There, fixed it for you.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    8. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      sweet. sooner the better, please. also, in case you failed to catch the drift, refrain from posting stupid shit like your previous comments here. if between now and the time you do off yourself you have an "and so what?" moment, let it go, don't act on it, and hurry up with that noose or pistol or razor blade or w/e. yeah, dude. really. your attitude toward privacy disgusts me. if you want to make that suicide a pact with zuckerberg, be my guest. the human race doesn't need you or him or anyone else who doesn't give a shit about others' privacy.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    9. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much is Facebook paying you to make its critics look like morons?

    10. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      The article is wrong.

      Being tagged in a comment trumps any privacy settings that the poster selected.

      If Andy metions Bob in a post, and sets the post so that everyone can see it except Bob, even if Andy and Bob are not friends, Bob will see it because he is tagged in it.

      --
      -David
    11. Re:The Unsationalized Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. So someone tags a photo of me passed out. So what happened to "I don't mind this picture tagged, and I don't mind it being on MY homepage, but I don't want it visible to my family."

      If I have a special list "Family"

      There is no way to single this photo out as tagged and visible only to "Friends, except Family", also known as Custom.

      Its an ALL or NOTHING situation. Either all approved photos are visible by "Friends, except Family" (Custom) or whatever other option I chose. but it applies for all tagged photos!

  24. Tried this out - Does not work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that if you tag someone in a photo they are automatically given permissions to see it even if they would otherwise be blocked.

    Tagging white-list overrides restrictions. Be careful who you tag as it gives them permission to see your post.

  25. Fulla crock. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2

    Unless there's something distinct between how pictures and regular post taggings work.

    Fiancee just created a post that excluded me in the privacy controls by name, but tagged me in it. Not only can I see it, but FB dutifully emailed me that I was tagged in someone's post.

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  26. Moot point by DogDude · · Score: 1

    It's really a moot point. Google Plus will be the next big thing within 6 months, and Facebook will go the way of MySpace and Friendster.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  27. This may be good..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If enough people are mis-tagged and then sue the various employers/agencies that refuse to hire them/fire them/arrest them, then it will be the end of companies mining FB for info about us.

  28. Broken? by epp_b · · Score: 1

    You mean, like, with air quotes, right?

  29. Closing quote by http · · Score: 1

    "I can't believe even Facebook would do this intentionally"
    Dan must be new to this internet thing.

    --
    If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
    3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
  30. Not so fast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At my firm we've confirmed that this doesn't work. If you are tagged in a photo, hidden or not, you can go look at it.

  31. Can't Duplicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just tried what the article described. I uploaded a picture and tagged my wife in it. I made it public, excluding my wife.

    During the upload, a note stated "Note: anyone tagged and their friends can also see this post." This suggests my wife would see the picture despite my explicit rule excluding her.

    And of course, it showed up on her profile and she could remove the tag. At that point, the picture disappeared from her wall.

    I know Facebook has some issues, but I think Dan Tynan is just sensationalizing a non truth to make noise.

    Please let me know if I'm wrong and you were able to replicate what the summary described and how it was done.

  32. Obligatory Facebook blacklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook blacklist
    66.249.64.0/19
    67.192.35.191
    69.63.176.10
    69.63.176.11
    69.63.176.0/20
    69.63.181.12
    69.63.181.0/20
    69.63.184.11
    69.63.189.11
    69.63.189.0/20
    204.15.20.80
    204.15.20.0/20

  33. Bad logic.. by xkpe · · Score: 1

    That's not a privacy issue at all. Thats like saying no one can talk about me without me knowing. Who publishes the photo has the right to choose who he wants to see the photo and who tags has the right to choose who he wants to know about it.

  34. BS by thePuck77 · · Score: 1

    Cited exploit(?) does not work or already fixed.

    --
    "We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel