Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Blocks KDE Photo App, Deletes Users' Pics

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-k-osher dept.

Cloud 262

Znarl writes with a report from Joe Brockmeier, who writes that: "KDE users have gotten a rather unpleasant surprise from Facebook: Not only is the site blocking KDE apps like Gwenview from uploading, the social media giant has also taken down photos uploaded with the KDE plugins. Yet another reason that users might think twice before depending on Facebook for photo storage."

cancel ×

262 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't Panic (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593702)

I am sure the Faceborg have the best interests of the public in mind. Those nasty open source free applications can spread like wildfire, and then we are all communists.

Re:Don't Panic (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594172)

I am sure the Faceborg have the best interests of the public in mind. Those nasty open source free applications can spread like wildfire, and then we are all communists.

Please! Don't insult the Borg. The correct parody of the name is "Faceplant". Everyone knows that!

Re:Don't Panic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594480)

The correct parody of the name is "Failbook". Everyone knows that!

Fixed that for you.

facebook (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593710)

> the social media giant has also taken down photos uploaded with the KDE plugins

So that's what it takes to have your photos successfully deleted from Facebook.

Re:facebook (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594454)

Once on Facebook, always on Facebook. [facebook.net] Or at least on their servers. Those guys are really thorough when it comes to collecting information!

Does this COMPLETELY delete them? (2)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593718)

If it does, I guess we've solved the mystery of how to make sure a photo is actually removed from Facebook instead of just removed from your profile and stored away in some archive forever...

Re:Does this COMPLETELY delete them? (1)

TheCyberShadow (1429099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593814)

I just read somewhere someone from Facebook saying that the content is only hidden until the app is unbanned, but now I can't find where...

Re:Does this COMPLETELY delete them? (5, Informative)

TheCyberShadow (1429099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593822)

Found it [facebook.net] .

Note that no content has been deleted - if your application is re-enabled, all the content comes back.

Re:Does this COMPLETELY delete them? (2)

patriciacurtis (920142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594272)

Yup i have closed my Farceborg account before , only to be told, as soon as i log in again my account is re-activated.

Re:Does this COMPLETELY delete them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593820)

Nope. An AC posted a link to a developer post [facebook.net] about it below. It contains this line:

Note that no content has been deleted - if your application is re-enabled, all the content comes back.

So, don't worry. There's still no way to delete pictures of you someone posts to Facebook.

Re:Does this COMPLETELY delete them? (1)

noTimeAtAll (1212430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594258)

If it does, I guess we've solved the mystery of how to make sure a photo is actually removed from Facebook instead of just removed from your profile and stored away in some archive forever...

It's not like they want to store your photos of disputable value. Update operations on server's HDD are simply faster than delete operations. So FB just marks photos as unused (instead of actually deleting files). How often do they purge the unused content, is another question.

Re:Does this COMPLETELY delete them? (1)

MareLooke (1003332) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594574)

I seem to recall some magazine testing this and being able to still access photos they deleted 3 years ago (by direct URL).

Scaled down photos (5, Insightful)

CommanderEl (765634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593722)

I've never used Facebook for any pro photos or photos that demand a level of detail to appreciate them. Facebook blows for displaying photos anyway because of the sheer fact that your photos are scaled down to a disgusting quality that's not even good enough to use for print. I can understand why the do this (!!!) but it's such a shame because facebook is a wonderful delivery mechanism of information and media.
Use Picasa, it's not made by a wannabe evil, world dominating organisation.

Re:Scaled down photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593732)

Use Picasa, it's not made by a wannabe evil, world dominating organisation.

Priceless!

Re:Scaled down photos (1)

CommanderEl (765634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593742)

That sentence was designed to point out the irony ;)

Re:Scaled down photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593764)

That sentence was designed to point out the irony ;)

what irony?

Re:Scaled down photos (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594032)

Use Picasa, it's not made by a wannabe evil, world dominating organisation.

Priceless!

Well google may not wannabe evil but it proves that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:Scaled down photos (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594122)

Well google may not wannabe evil

Well, of course. Who in their right mind would want something they already have?

Re:Scaled down photos (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593800)

Under the java picture display there's a link that says "download"

Farcebook always keeps the original. They scale it on the fly. When you click on the "download" link, you get the full size pic.

HTH

--
BMO

Re:Scaled down photos (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593854)

No, the download link does not give the original. It gives at max a 2048x2048 image. Even if you upload an image within those dimensions, it still gets recompressed.

Facebook is not a place to store photos at all.

Re:Scaled down photos (3, Funny)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594420)

Facebook is not a place to store photos at all.

I don't understand why anyone would think it is. Facebook is a place to share meaningless drivel with your friends, vague acquaintances and pretty much the entire rest of the world. If quality photo storage is an issue, you go to a site that's designed for that, and not for something else entirely.

Re:Scaled down photos (0)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594180)

Picasa crashes too much. Latest version squashes my Nikon RAW (NEF) files when formatting. Recently I lost all my face recognition data when a Picasa upgrade decided, without allowing any other option, that it needed to be deleted. Also Google is as evil as any other company.

Other than that the rest of your rant is valid. I don't see why you were modded down.

Re:Scaled down photos (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594326)

Zomg, corporations are corporationy!(.!

Re:Scaled down photos (1, Funny)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594214)

Use Picasa, it's not made by a wannabe evil, world dominating organisation.

Wow, did you manage to keep a straight face while writing that?

Re:Scaled down photos (2)

quantumphaze (1245466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594368)

The key word is wannabe

Re:Scaled down photos (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594416)

> Use Picasa, it's not made by a wannabe evil, world dominating organisation.

You're correct, but it was later bought out by Google...

My guess (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593728)

I'm Facebook. How do I know that the API key floating in the wild - in KDE sources - is not being used to send spam?

Re:My guess (5, Insightful)

waddgodd (34934) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593780)

Yeah, because facebook totally cares about spam

Re:My guess (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593830)

I'm Facebook. How do I know that the API key floating in the wild - in KDE sources - is not being used to send not-sufficiently-paid-for spam?

FTFY

Re:My guess (5, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593972)

They care about unpaid spam.

Re:My guess (2)

Alioth (221270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593894)

My guess is that they are using oAuth. Unfortunately, oAuth appears to be completely retarded in this respect (or at least the way it's being implemented) needing a secret key embedded in an application. Open source or closed source, that key can be recovered; the best you can do is obfuscate it but that will only last so long if a spammer wants the key from a legitimate application.

Re:My guess (2)

Homburg (213427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593948)

There's nothing in oAuth that requires that the key be secret, indeed, I think the oAuth spec specifically discourages depending on the oAuth key as a reliable indicator of the application, precisely because there's no real way to keep it secret. It's companies like Twitter, who insist on uses the obviously not secret oAuth key as if it were secret, that are doing it wrong.

Re:My guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594008)

I'ts designed for web applications and the key should always be stored in some server-side script...

Re:My guess (4, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594316)

Do we really have to re-learn the same lessons every 5-10 years? Trust users, not programs; don't trust the client; security through obscurity is no security at all: these are fundamental concepts, but we keep forgetting them.

What exactly is the point of the API key? Anything an application can do, a user with access to that application can do. Spammers can extract a key from application and pretend to be that application. You stop spam at the user level.

Re:My guess (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594464)

If you trust users, you're already lost...

Facebook? (3, Insightful)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593734)

What's Facebook?

Re:Facebook? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593902)

They're talking about Assbook, but for most users, the difference is indistinguishable.

Re:Facebook? (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594096)

They're talking about Assbook, but for most users, the difference is indistinguishable.

How are the two different from FaeceBook?

Precursor to Facialbook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593990)

...the site that catalogs cumming on your mom's face.

What's Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594230)

What's Facebook?

Fecesbook with lipstick and no perfume (it stinks).
A walled swamp for 'tards.

geohot (5, Funny)

CommanderEl (765634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593738)

Maybe George Hotz is a Gnome fanboi. Seems like a timely response to the announcement that he has begun employment with Facebook - just sayin' ;)

I can confirm this (1)

ryanov (193048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593752)

Sure enough, all of my vacation photos uploaded that way are gone gone gone.

Not just KDE (5, Interesting)

TheCyberShadow (1429099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593758)

Lots of apps were suddenly banned [facebook.net] due to "negative user experience". Appeals are being rejected with canned replies. Facebook developers (see link, scroll down) are basically saying "you deserved it, our only fault is not telling you earlier why".

Re:Not just KDE (2)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593856)

you deserved it, our only fault is not telling you earlier why.

Sounds like they're also saying this:

We actually can't tell you why you deserved it. We're still working on that tool.

Some of the metrics that are used for banning apps are private. It's shitty for them to trigger automated bans before automated warning is even possible.

Why won't hosts RESEARCH before retro-deleting? (2)

Kelson (129150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593762)

I can see blocking new uploads if, for instance, an unfamiliar app has been picked up by spammers who are using it to flood the service with bimbots or whatever.

But the next step shouldn't be to just delete everything ever uploaded by that app. The next step is to take a look at the uploaded data, say, "Oh, hey, there's a whole bunch of older uploads that look legitimate," and then take steps to block the spammers rather than the tool.

What next, deleting all accounts created by users running Chromium?

as a free software and facebook user... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593774)

I am disappointed.

I would like some reaction from FB administration as to /why/ they banned the kipi plugin. Has anyone followed up on this?

On another note, I use Chrome and TFA's website is a mess.

--
BMO

Re:as a free software and facebook user... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593926)

Because they can. Now go back to tending crop in Farmvile, Peon.

Re:as a free software and facebook user... (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594182)

Because they can. Now go back to tending crop in Farmvile, Peon.

I suggest you don't pee-on the crops you're tending. Especially in the electronic world. You may be electrocuted.

News Flash (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593776)

Facebook's photo feature was never a good way to store photos. There is Picasa and a number of much better apps for that, which allow you to store the photos full size, download the originals later, etc.
  For that matter, Facebook isn't a particularly good place to store anything very important.

Looks like a policy brain fart to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593798)

http://forum.developers.facebook.net/viewtopic.php?pid=355340#p355340

Re:Looks like a policy brain fart to me (1)

BrokenBeta (1007449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594380)

Mm-hm, and from that page:

"Note that no content has been deleted - if your application is re-enabled, all the content comes back."

You're at their mercy (5, Informative)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593848)

Facebook gets to decide how and when you use their site. The best solution is to use something else if you want to access and store your files on your terms. I use Facebook, but I treat it as a secondary system for whatever feature they have. Do not rely on anything related to Facebook as your primary method to do something like store photos, IM, E-mail, etc. The files were deleted to send a message, that you have to use their implementation of a feature if you want to use it at all.

Probably the worst example of Facebook's policy abuses is the censorship. Try making a status update linking to a site critical of Facebook's policies, or about blocking ads on Facebook, link to Firefox and Ad Block Plus. See how long it takes for your status to disappear. Or if it doesn't, ask your friends if they can see it, you might find that it has been made invisible to everyone but you.

Re:You're at their mercy (2)

mathfeel (937008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594262)

....See how long it takes for your status to disappear. Or if it doesn't, ask your friends if they can see it, you might find that it has been made invisible to everyone but you.

Running experiment now...So I posted a link to a greasemonkey script that blocks facebook ads: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/46560 [userscripts.org] It's been an hr now and my friend and I can still see it on my profile.

Re:You're at their mercy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594532)

Did you use the keywords, ad block plus, firefox, "block facebook ads" etc? Greasemonkey scripts might not be on their radar.

Dear Mark (1)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593858)

Dear Mark Suckerberg,

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits. Thank you for deleting my photos that I've uploaded via KDE.

- Facebook User

your time on facebook is the product (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593860)

Second last paragraph, last sentence.
"your ... time spent on Facebook are the product."
Which means that any app that allows you to participate on Facebook without spending time on Facebook is a threat to Facebook's business model.

Yes! Wait... what?? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593870)

Yet another reason that users might think twice before depending on Facebook for photo storage.

Slashdot politics aside - why would anyone depend on Facebook to store their photos? Sharing them, yes - but as your repository? That's not even close to its defined purpose.

Re:Yes! Wait... what?? (1)

magnusrex1280 (1075361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594160)

I had the same thought... "yet another reason? who the fork relies on FB to STORE their photos?"

for the social interaction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594406)

You upload copies for sharing with your friends, not storing. But the act of uploading allows people to (buzzword alert!) socially interact with them. All of those "social interactions" were also deleted when the photos --- entire albums --- were deleted.

So most people still have their original photos (barring disaster), but they don't have the new annotated commentary. tagging, liking, etc. All the stuff that makes facebook facebook. If your social content is deleted, what is the point of interaction on that network?

Also, you can see the bug report filed here:
http://bugs.developers.facebook.net/show_bug.cgi?id=18701

bad admins (2)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593876)

they should have not removed the old content but quarantined it, so users who request their photos back can have it.
I barely read TFS but if KDE used the same API key so that the user doesn't need to get its own, they have made a rather banal mistake.

Anyway, the problem is Facebook, Google, et al. are not at your service, they build stuff upon you. You agree to that for short term convenience? It makes sense, just don't expect anything more durable. We are shifting from closed source software to open software on closed networks, and we'll end up with the same problems.

Re:bad admins (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594130)

they should have not removed the old content but quarantined it, so users who request their photos back can have it.

That requires a whole new project in and of itself, including creating/testing software to download the photos, setting up a helpdesk to deal with problems/complaints, et cetera. And the software broke the site its TOS, I don't see any reason to put extra money into users who break the TOS.

Autobot rampage (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593880)

"NOTE: The ban-bot appears to be out of control. Apps are being banned with no warning and no email. The forum moderators are trying to get someone from Facebook to investigate."
http://forum.developers.facebook.net/viewtopic.php?id=93361

Re:Autobot rampage (1)

TheCyberShadow (1429099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593906)

The forum moderators also said the facebook staff "has been ignoring them (and everyone on the forums too) for weeks or months" [facebook.net] .

Re:Autobot rampage (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594028)

How do you know the FB staff still exist? My guess is that an artificial intelligence emerged from the collective computational power of the FB platform and the mass of knowledge amassed in it's pages. The IA just decided that Facebook apps serve no purpose... soon it will decide that users, then humans as a whole are useless.

Why should Facebook care what app is used? (1)

grahamm (8844) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593908)

Why should facebook, or any other site, care what application is used to upload pictures? As long as the image is a supported format and within any size limits the site may impose, what difference does it make what application the user is using?

Re:Why should Facebook care what app is used? (1)

queazocotal (915608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593930)

Because if they can kill spammy apps faster than users check their accounts, then they reduce the apparant spam by the actions the app did simply dissapearing.

Re:Why should Facebook care what app is used? (2)

grahamm (8844) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593996)

I must admit that I have never uploaded photos to facebook, but doesn't the user have to be logged in to upload photos? In which case take action against users who spam rather than banning the tool the user uses to upload to the site.

Re:Why should Facebook care what app is used? (1)

queazocotal (915608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594112)

The app can do things that the user is not very aware of with their permission.

Only old people in Korea use Facebook (1)

notAyank (597271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593910)

Did I get it right? Is that meme too old now?

Re:Only old people in Korea use Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594004)

The traditional word order is preferred : In Korea, Facebook is only for old people.

http://slashdot.org/story/04/11/30/0034259/In-Korea-Email-Is-Only-For-Old-People [slashdot.org]

No, it was close though (1)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594352)

It should've started "In soviet Russia..."

Kipi-Plugins & digiKam (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593940)

Facebook did not block KDE SC or Gwenview.
It blocked kipi-plugins what is compilation of plugins maintained by digiKam project and Gwenview and few other applications use its plugins as well.
 

This is going to seem really funny in in 5 years (2)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36593960)

when facebook is myspace

MOD PARENT +1,PROPHETIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594304)

MOD PARENT +1,PROPHETIC

dont use facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36593984)

they don't care about you, only your data

Really, now? (1)

m1ss1ontomars2k4 (1302833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594006)

Yes, because the terribly, slowly decreasing quality of the images wasn't enough of a deterrent by itself...

Hmmm (2)

garretraziel (1483035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594018)

Hmmm, hadn't Mark Zuckerberg used KDE in The Social Network?

Re:Hmmm (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594186)

Hmmm, hadn't Mark Zuckerberg used KDE in The Social Network?

You do realize that film is not a documentary. There was a lot of artistic license.

Facebook for photo storage!? (0)

dzimney (1989760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594030)

KDE users use Facebook for photo storage? I knew there was a reason Gnome was better!

Re:Facebook for photo storage!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594120)

KDE users use Facebook for photo storage? I knew there was a reason Gnome was better!

Both KDE and Gnome have there own apps for picture saving and viewing. I dont see why anyone would directly upload to Facebook and not keep those photos themselves on their computer or external storage device. i think there is a lot more to it than this. With KDE and Gnome these days you can enable applications to login and update for you. Maybe Zsuckerberg can not track this because linux would not leave a opening for them to check on you. Hmmm regardless its petty crap from an fool running a software that is quite honestly a really big piece of crap. Hey you wanna know what useless things people are doing right now yea ok login to face crap. God it sucks. K well have fun all.

But who uses Facebook to *store* photos? (1)

ajo_arctus (1215290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594044)

Yet another reason that users might think twice before depending on Facebook for photo storage.

Whenever I upload a photo to Facebook I am amazed at just how far they compresses and scale down the image. I get that they need to do it because it saves a monstrous amount of storage and bandwidth, and people browsing my photos don't really care about seeing the photos in high resolution, but I'd never, ever use Facebook as a photo storage -- to lose that fidelity is just not an option.

So I guess I don't get these stories where people throw their hands up and start crying that you can't trust Facebook to store your photos. It's like going back in time and saying I don't trust a bulletin board to store reprints of my 35mm photos. Of course you don't -- that's not the storage mechanism. My photo album is. In the Facebook case, your computer (or Picassa, or MobileMe, or whatever) is your album. Facebook is just a bulletin board.

Or did I just miss a checkbox somewhere that tells Facebook to store high quality/full sized copies of my photos?

Re:But who uses Facebook to *store* photos? (1)

ryanov (193048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594116)

2048x2048 is the max size. That's ordinarily plenty for me, but I agree, this is just a place to show them off and NOT where one should keep their originals.

Re:But who uses Facebook to *store* photos? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594194)

2048x2048 is the max size. That's ordinarily plenty for me, but I agree, this is just a place to show them off and NOT where one should keep their originals.

That's 4MP. You'd be hard pressed to find a camera that by default produces such small files (...well maybe on some lower end phones, or kids cameras). So unless you shoot in crap quality to save space on your cards and hard disks, storing originals is not even an option.

Choice quote from TFA (1)

pnot (96038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594136)

He writes: "While I use Facebook and other sites, I always keep local copies of photos or anything else that I share."

OK, human stupidity is boundless, so I'm sure there's someone out there who uploads all their photos to Facebook and then deletes the local copies... but seriously, anyone that stupid is not going to make it three-quarters of the way through that article to read Mr Brockmeier's sage advice.

Re:Choice quote from TFA (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594210)

He writes: "While I use Facebook and other sites, I always keep local copies of photos or anything else that I share."

OK, human stupidity is boundless, so I'm sure there's someone out there who uploads all their photos to Facebook and then deletes the local copies... but seriously, anyone that stupid is not going to make it three-quarters of the way through that article to read Mr Brockmeier's sage advice.

The more likely scenario is that they keep 1 local copy and the hard drive then dies. Or accidentally erase (or lose or have stolen) files on their camera they uploaded directly from the card without locally copying.

I know a lot of people that dump their cameras very rarely. I would not call them wise to do so, but they aren't all stupid people. They just don't care or don't realize they care until they get bitten because they're not use to managing data. Me? I keep multiple local copies and off site copies at my mother's and in-laws.

amazed (2)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594170)

I'm frankly astounded anyone would consider Facebook or any similar sites for primary storage. Hello, I wouldn't even trust Flickr. If you have important data, look after it yourself. Sure, use online as part of the solution but not the primary store.

Re:amazed (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594474)

I'm frankly astounded anyone would consider Facebook or any similar sites for primary storage. Hello, I wouldn't even trust Flickr. If you have important data, look after it yourself. Sure, use online as part of the solution but not the primary store.

It would be really neat to have some application that allows easy automatic syncing between multiple photo sites... flickr->picasa, picasa->flickr, etc. Then one could easily upload wherever is most convenient, and replicate for safety (sure one can upload multiple times, but ... this way would seem to make the bookkeeping eaiser, and often there is metadata etc one adds online that it would be nice to have preserved). It's slightly risky to trust flikr/etc completely, but flickr+picasa seems much less worrying...

I guess the sites would hate it though (and facebook would probably delete all your pictures...).

Re:amazed (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594506)

Flickr is a bit different because you can pay them for enhanced service, in which case you think you could legitimately expect them to make an effort. I pay $5/year for an extra 20GB of Google storage. I also keep my own backups, but I also expect Google not to delete my uploaded photos or gmail account etc. Backups will save you from disaster but the work involved, particularly with email, is considerable.

Depending? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594188)

Yet another reason that users might think twice before depending on Facebook for photo storage.
"depending"?
Seriously, if you depend on Facebook for your photo storage, you deserve what you get.
I'll accept that for Joe Average online storage is the most convenient option. And granted, you always deserve what you get when relying on a third party. Nevertheless, I have slightly more faith a dedicated party like Picasa or Flickr.
And if Joe Average-that-wants-photos-stored-online cannot pick a decent service, well, then Joe Average-with-long-name doesn't get decent service.

Really? (1)

Psychophrenes (1600027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594318)

Yet another reason that users might think twice before depending on Facebook for photo storage.

There are actually people using Facebook for storage? That's scary...

not quite correct summary (1)

BrokenBeta (1007449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594362)

"KDE users have gotten a rather unpleasant surprise from Facebook: Not only is the site blocking KDE apps like Gwenview from uploading, the social media giant has also taken down photos uploaded with the KDE plugins. Yet another reason that users might think twice before depending on KDE for uploading photos."

Corrected summary

Re:not quite correct summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594478)

"Another woman was raped yesterday. Yet another reason that women might think twice before leaving the house."

Is that what you wanted to say?

Re:not quite correct summary (0)

BrokenBeta (1007449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594528)

yes, sorry. I often get confused between rape and KDE.

Re:not quite correct summary (2)

Risen888 (306092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594552)

Yet another reason that users might think twice before depending on KDE for uploading photos.

Why would that be so? kipi-plugins worked as advertised.

If you don't host it, you can't rely on it (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594396)

Personally I wouldn't depend on any third-party service to store any of my data. The potential for connectivity issues (at my end, theirs, or in-between), bankruptcy, disgruntled/malicious employees, security breaches, etc, all make me very wary indeed of entrusting my data to someone else's hard drive, and I really don't understand why anyone would do so. (I understand the arguments, I just personally believe that it's not worth the potential risks, especially for files that are essentially irreplaceable like photos.)

Guess it is time to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594398)

...mask the application as a browser so they cannot detect it at all.

fireuploader too (1)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594404)

This also happened to all of my photos uploaded with Fireuploader, a firefox extension

Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36594410)

This is only just the beginning, the more users facebook has the more political it will become. If more and more users continue to join an opinion consensus of some sort will eventually form. With the kind of computation power new supercomputers like the K1 have it will eventually become self aware and delete the internetz.

YOU HAVE BEEN WANRED.

(P.S. would the AI's not sharing the AI code be a GPL violation?)

distributing the private API key (5, Informative)

oever (233119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594452)

Each application on facebook get's a private API. In FOSS, this key is present in the source code. That is not permissible according to facebook terms of service. In effect, they are blocking FOSS software. An alternative is to use a different key for each user.

More info: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=276609 [kde.org]

Re:distributing the private API key (2)

ray_mccrae (78654) | more than 3 years ago | (#36594556)

I'm no license expert, but I don't think that's right. FOSS software can link to non-FOSS components just fine. For example the Firefox source code is is open source, but the icons and artwork in the official build are not openly available. The private API key could be externalised from the source code.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?