Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's New Privacy Controls: Still Broken
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.'"
... except Slashdot didn't write this article.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
And if my non-technical friends and family put their entire lives on Slashdot, I would be more concerned about Slashdot's security bugs.
Google is bad. Therefore, anything less bad must be good and/or can't be criticized!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Facebook controls your privacy.....no wait....
Where does the signature go?
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?
Don't be absurd. Everyone knows CmdrTaco can't code.
Yes, less bad is good.
Thanks for that insight.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
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!
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.
Facebook's New Privacy Controls: Still Broken
It isn't broken.
"Not working" isn't the same as "broken"
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
Facebook users should always keep in mind that they are the product. not the consumer.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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%
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)
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.
After this, either would be fine with me...
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
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!
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.
You mean, like, with air quotes, right?
Google isn't bad, microsoft just spends a lot of money to make you believe so.
"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
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.
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!
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!
Why aren't they using Slashdot for their social networking needs?
Because of the security bugs mentioned above, of course!
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