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.'"

16 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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?

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

      Mmmm... Delicious, forbidden, hidden pickles.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... by eln · · Score: 2

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

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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)