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!

Google Wrestles With Privacy Bugs In Google+

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the a-few-cracks-in-the-cement dept.

Google 163

CWmike writes "Google's new social networking site, Google+ — built to beat Facebook primarily on privacy features — has several privacy bugs the company is working to fix. While some enthusiastic beta testers clamor for Google to open the social networking site to everybody now, it's clear Google needs to address these issues before launching Google+ more broadly. Stumbling right out of the gate over privacy problems would likely doom Google+'s chances of emerging as a viable, realistic rival to Facebook, which rules the social networking market with about 700 million account holders. So far, beta testers have been mostly positive about Google+, particularly over its design to make it easier for users to share posts and content with different sets of people, as opposed with their entire list of contacts. Many of the existing privacy bugs in Google+ revolve around the site's mechanism to block users, according to this published list."

cancel ×

163 comments

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

Jonesin' (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675294)

Can't we just talk about BitCoin?

Google+ ToS (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675822)

Has anyone reviewed the Google+ Terms of Service? I'm wondering if they can just change this them on a whim. Something tells me that if Google+ were truly successful, then at some point in the future they would change the ToS to incorporate reductions in privacy. However, if the ToS were a two-way, I don't know, 'contract', where users actually have contractual rights to their information, then perhaps that would be something more interesting to those who are concerned about privacy.

Re:Google+ ToS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676030)

It's considered bad form to reply to an off-topic first post with an on-topic response just so it's at the top of the page.

Re:Google+ ToS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676640)

It's considered bad form to reply as an A.C. and expect a response or anyone to care.

There, FTFY.

Re:Google+ ToS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676596)

However, if the ToS were a two-way, I don't know, 'contract', where users actually have contractual rights to their information

Hahaha, you are funny, you... clearly you do not understand a fundamental law of economics: if you are not paying for a trade, you are the trade...
Basically, you'll have the right to shut up and hand over as much information as they ask for... oh, that and your first born

Re:Jonesin' (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676416)

It's been bought by Google and rebranded +Coin.

Tracker to prevent violations. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675332)

Google+ needs a tracker to prevent violations. Otherwise, how will people come to the garbage of this place and realize it? Sorry.

Side note: Google+ looks interesting.

Re:Tracker to prevent violations. (1)

dotmax (642602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675366)

Stumbling right out of the gate over privacy problems would likely doom Google+'s chances of emerging as a viable, realistic rival to Facebook, which rules the social networking market with about 700 million account holders

Editorialize much?

Eat my GPL'd penis! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675396)

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                                              Version 3, 29 June 2007

  Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                                                        Preamble

    The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.

    The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

    Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

    For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions.

    Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those
products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we
stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions
of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

    Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to
avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could
make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that
patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                                              TERMS AND CONDITIONS

    0. Definitions.

    "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

    "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.

    "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

    To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

    A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.

    To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.

    To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

    An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

    1. Source Code.

    The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source
form of a work.

    A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
is widely used among developers working in that language.

    The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

    The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.

    The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users
can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding
Source.

    The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
same work.

    2. Basic Permissions.

    All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

    You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

    Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.

    3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

    No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
measures.

    When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures.

    4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

    You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

    You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

    5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

    You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
        it, and giving a relevant date.

        b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
        released under this License and any conditions added under section
        7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
        "keep intact all notices".

        c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
        License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
        License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
        additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
        regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
        permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
        invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

        d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
        Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
        interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
        work need not make them do so.

    A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.

    6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

    You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
in one of these ways:

        a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
        Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
        customarily used for software interchange.

        b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
        written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
        long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
        model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
        copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
        product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
        medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
        more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
        conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
        Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

        c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
        written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
        alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
        only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
        with subsection 6b.

        d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
        place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
        Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
        further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
        Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to
        copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
        may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
        that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
        clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
        Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the
        Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
        available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

        e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
        you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
        Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
        charge under subsection 6d.

    A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.

    A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular
product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product
is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
the only significant mode of use of the product.

    "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.

    If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM).

    The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a
network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network.

    Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
source code form), and must require no special password or key for
unpacking, reading or copying.

    7. Additional Terms.

    "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.

    When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

        a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
        terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or

        b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
        author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
        Notices displayed by works containing it; or

        c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
        requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
        reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

        d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
        authors of the material; or

        e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
        trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

        f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
        material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
        it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
        any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
        those licensors and authors.

    All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.

    If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.

    Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions;
the above requirements apply either way.

    8. Termination.

    You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
paragraph of section 11).

    However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.

    Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

    Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
material under section 10.

    9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

    You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

    10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

    Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

    An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

    You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

    11. Patents.

    A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".

    A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

    Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

    In the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement). To "grant" such a patent license to a
party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
patent against the party.

    If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have
actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
country that you have reason to believe are valid.

    If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.

    A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

    Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

    12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

    If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

    13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
combination as such.

    14. Revised Versions of this License.

    The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

    If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

    Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

    15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

    THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

    16. Limitation of Liability.

    IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS
THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD
PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.

    17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

    If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.

                                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                        How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
        Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

        This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

    If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

        <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
        This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands
might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".

    You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

    The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License. But first, please read
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.

Is it even possible... (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675370)

Will anyone ever create a social network firmly rooted in personal privacy? Are the two mutually exclusive?

Yes, It's Called Google+ (1)

AddisonW (2318666) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675416)

Let me guess...you didn't bother to read the garbage article and just read the attention grabbing bullshit headline and posted?

Re:Yes, It's Called Google+ (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675438)

... as per tradition.

Re:Yes, It's Called Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675444)

Eric Schmidt something like 'no one has an expectation to privacy in Google's New World' Answers the question for ya?

Re:Yes, It's Called Google+ (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675958)

Only if we're having a made-up caption contest.

Re:Yes, It's Called Google+ (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675520)

Yeah, because if Google's known for one thing, it's privacy. Come on.

Go away idiot. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675612)

Google just rolled out the most privacy focused social network with the easiest and most powerful tools for you to control your personal information and who can and cannot access it.

Google doesn't ever sell your personal information to any third party companies like Facebook and other services.

What's that retard? Still feel like running your fucking dimwitted mouth off some more?

Re:Go away idiot. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675810)

Google doesn't ever sell your personal information to any third party companies like Facebook and other services.

Umm, you might want to actually re-read their privacy policy:

We will not collect, sell, or share personally identifying information from ad serving cookies without your explicit consent.

So, yes, they actually will sell your information with your consent. Facebook requires consent as well and you give them consent by agreeing to their TOS.

Fanboy Fail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675936)

Give the lies a rest retard.

Re:Go away idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676226)

"With explicit consent" != "agree to these terms". The former requires opt-in. Also, cookies cover maybe 1% of the personal data a social network carries.

Re:Go away idiot. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675974)

u mad bro?

Re:Go away idiot. (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676258)

And the ability to delete and edit content. Of course, that relies on assuming that they're being truthful in actually deleting/overwriting the content you posted, which they may have some obligation to do if they say that it is going to be deleted permanently.

Re:Yes, It's Called Google+ (1)

walternate (2210674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676530)

Let me guess...you didn't bother to read the garbage article and just read the attention grabbing bullshit headline and posted?

You are expecting a "social network firmly rooted in personal privacy" from a company whose leaders have publically stated that you should forget about your privacy [networkworld.com] ?

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.". - Eric Schmidt, Google.

"but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities." -- Eric Schmidt, Google.

Re:Is it even possible... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675446)

diaspora?

Re:Is it even possible... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675684)

You mean, the software where as long as you were logged on, you could do anything, since they had no authorization checks?

At least it's not like Buzz (2)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675382)

I'm still not happy with their attempt to force us to use our real identities for social networking (though to be fair, it's not that that's any different from what Facebook tries to do) but i am definitely happy that they're going with a by invite beta test this time rather than rolling it all out to _everyone_ at once, privacy "bugs" and all, like they did with Buzz.

Re:At least it's not like Buzz (2)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675864)

I have never used my "real" identity with Google, I do not know where you are getting the idea that you must?

Unlike Facebook, which actively would delete accounts made representing your virtual identities and insist on verifying real information.

The later was useless to me, as my entire presence for decades is based on me, not my real name (which happens to co-exist with a celebrity, making it useless).

With Google thankfully, there is no name requirement, no verification, no cross referencing, just me, and whatever I choose to put in the name fields, which is no different than it has been all along.

Re:At least it's not like Buzz (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676120)

I have never used my "real" identity with Google, I do not know where you are getting the idea that you must?

Perhaps "force" is too strong a word, but it's certainly an attempt to encourage you to do so with some steps taken to enforce the encouragement.

The gripe i have in particular is that everything seems to be pretty publicly linked with your Google email account. In order to to use Buzz and now presumably Google+ you have to create a Google Profile and provide a "real" name. There's nothing stopping you from providing a fake name in the profile of course, but it's going to be publicly linked with your email account.

So _if_ you originally picked an email name (back when it seemed like all it was going to be was an email name) that is rather identifiable with your real life identity there's no way to hide behind an alias using that account, unlike a lot of other social services which doesn't automatically share the email address you used to sign up for the service with everyone.

Now of course there's nothing stopping you from creating a new email address and setting up a profile for that one (once it comes out of beta of course) but then you've got to deal with migrating relevant stuff over from your old account to your new account.

And of course that's not even considering the fact that because they publicly link your email address with your profile and encourage you to use your real name for your profile then it's quite likely that a number of the people you'd want to include in your friend circles (or whatever they're called) will be using their real names (or something that is trivially linked with their real identities) which means that pretty soon it will probably be possible to figure out your real identity just from social analysis based on your connections.

Re:At least it's not like Buzz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676440)

Now of course there's nothing stopping you from creating a new email address and setting up a profile for that one (once it comes out of beta of course) but then you've got to deal with migrating relevant stuff over from your old account to your new account.

Um, what? Google Mail makes it exceedingly easy to setup multiple alias accounts all managed by one master account. By setting up filters you can forward between Gmail accounts, or you can use POP3 to pull mail (from Gmail or other email providers). Gmail's plus-addressing feature makes it trivially easy to determine from where the emails are forwarded. It also lets you send email on behalf of other accounts by forging the from: field.

I had around 9 Gmail/GApps/Live accounts a few years back, all managed from one non-public Google account. Any email that wasn't forwarded by me was automatically trashed. That was before I permanently deleted all 5 of my Google accounts (for reasons I won't mention).

Re:At least it's not like Buzz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675888)

Well, either way, Facebook really does need some sort of competition to spur them to think a bit more abut their privacy features... And from the looks of Google+, the UI (For, I think, the first time in history for Google) is actually well thought out. I am kinda excited... I kind of hope to see some of the old Google Wave feature set brought into it (Wave was never a big success, but it definitely had some features that would be useful in a really big social networking site).

Re:At least it's not like Buzz (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676292)

Create new Google Account. Join Google+, fill with profile with random data.

As soon as you add friends to your circles, or your friends add you to their circles, then they will be able to determine enough about you by inference.

Re:At least it's not like Buzz (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676448)

First of all that's kind of a pain, and second of all since many of your friends probably went along with Google's encouragement and used their real names it's possible that other people who aren't your friends could make the same inference as well, which could be a problem if privacy is of concern for you.

I'm not saying it's impossible to be at least somewhat private using Google+ and I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to be public and share that kind of info if they want, but the fact that Google tries to make it a "difficult to opt-out" scenario depending on what email name you chose for your original account bugs me a bit.

GOOGLE? PRIVACY??? (-1, Troll)

sakura the mc (795726) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675390)

LOL

"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (4, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675392)

as opposed with their entire list of contacts

Is this seriously a positive point? I've been able to select and block specific groups on my status messages, images, albums, etc. on Facebook for at least the last two years.

Come to think about it, Circles in Google+ are simply Facebook Lists and Groups merged together in disguise. I get better permission granularity, get all the group chat features I want in Groups... am I simply not seeing the allure Google+ supposedly offers? I'm all for tossing Facebook, but in all honesty, another centralized platform (especially one owned by an advertisement near-deity) just seems like a terrible idea.

I wouldn't mind an update on Diaspora right about now.

What A Fucking Retard (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675502)

What a perfect example of the complete irrelevance of Slashdot and its idiotic posters and why this site has been circling the bowl for years now.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675508)

It's true that Circles are not a new concept, but the implementation is what makes it feel new. Facebook's lists are hard to use and are opaque. You have to go a few layers deep and they're not immediately visible or usable from the top level. Google decided to make Circles a core part of the presentation. The first thing you do when you sign up is put people in circles, and you can't make a post without picking a circle to post to. The fact that it is easy and transparent is what makes it so great. It's the classic development: They didn't invent it, they just made it usable.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (2, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675624)

and you see, I have a problem with this implementation.

Specifically, it takes me back to high school. It's fine and dandy, but half the goal of social networks is to keep networking, not to lock oneself to certain groups and isolate those groups from each other. I occasionally have a need to limit something to specific people, but I often want everyone to see my thoughts (as posted) to a) blend everyone's input together and b) give people an opportunity to expand their own social circles.

I just feel like Google's implementation here, while flashy, does nothing but isolate perspectives, ideas, and entire social groups even further. I suppose only time will tell whether Google's approach is better or worse, but I feel it will contribute to one of the few things the web allowed us to move away from: perspective bubbles.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (4, Insightful)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675682)

Then just post to all your circles or go twitter style and post public.

I pray you get hit by a bus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675704)

You are just too fucking pathetic to live.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675720)

Then create a fucking circle with all your fucking friends in it and spam them all you like.

Jesus Christ, do we really have to think for you?

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (2)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675794)

See, that's an opt-in procedure.

My point is that the opt-in nature of being able to broadcast isolates thoughts and perspectives, defeating the very point of a social network.

We Get It...You're A Fucking Moron (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675840)

Now go the fuck away.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676248)

The general concept of a social network isn't to mindlessly broadcast the same thing to everyone, and well 95% or more of what you have to say isn't appropriate to everyone you know (which these days everyone thinks they should be on your facebook). You come home from work, you want to complain to your friends about your boss, posting publicly you can't do that, your boss and/or co-workers are on facebook and that could come back to bite you. You think of a funny PG-13 or R rated joke, can't post that, don't want your grandma to see it, you hear news about your aunt's cancer your friends don't give a crap about that, but your family does. There is rarely 3 events in a year that are good enough to think everyone who knows you cares. I would rather have a network where when I post something it prompts and says, do you want to send this to
friends
family
co-workers
Everyone.
Before it goes out, rather then oh you didn't completely spend 2 hours fine tuning and setting up groups, I can safely assume that you want to tell everyone about it. Sure there are occasions where what you say are good to say to everyone who at least pretends to have interest in you (say a wedding, childbirth etc...) but I would imagine those are an extreme minority.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676524)

You're right, the concept isn't to "mindlessly broadcast the same thing to everyone."

The concept is to network people together and allow for this network to replicate. How is this supposed to happen if the same people are seeing the same things? Broadcasts allow for an extended discussion by parties unfamiliar with each other, introducing people to others they might normally have never met. That's one of the points of social networking, and that's what I'm trying to say. Circles in Google+ discourage this very mentality.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (1)

Snarky McButtface (1542357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675776)

Most people have made their own social circles. I mostly keep my work and private life separate. I certainly do not share what happens with my friends with my family either. If this is done properly, it will be nothing more than an extension of what most people do naturally.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (1)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675820)

Specifically, it takes me back to high school. It's fine and dandy, but half the goal of social networks is to keep networking, not to lock oneself to certain groups and isolate those groups from each other.

Then put everyone on the same circle.

A whole lot of people like to be in isolated groups, however. We're not looking to "expand our own social circles", we're just looking for a way to better communicate with our existing social circles. I pretty much created three different facebook accounts because there were three very different groups of people I hang with, and I never, absolutely NEVER wanted to post anything on one of those groups that I also wanted to post on another. None of those accounts include people I've never met in real life. Hell, they don't even include acquaintances. I've got to know them pretty well in real life, and then facebook is just a way to keep in touch.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (2)

Abreu (173023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675938)

Just use "public" then...

(it suddenly occurs to me... Is it possible to have one contact belong to different groups at the same time? Like some nesting Venn Diagram of interconnected circles?)

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (2)

m50d (797211) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676180)

Yes, that's the whole point of google+. You might have a family circle, a work circle, and a "close friends" circle, and different people could be in one, two or all of them.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676586)

but I often want everyone to see my thoughts

And people like you are why we hate Facebook. Is that so difficult to understand?

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (4, Informative)

21mhz (443080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675594)

Come to think about it, Circles in Google+ are simply Facebook Lists and Groups merged together in disguise. I get better permission granularity, get all the group chat features I want in Groups... am I simply not seeing the allure Google+ supposedly offers?

A web UI that's convenient and easy to use. Facebook's privacy settings for posting are buried too deep to be handy. Facebook lists are also a lot more tedious to set up; in Google+ you can assign people to circles easily from many places, including the notification that they have added you.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675596)

I'd love a Diaspora update, too, but in the last three months I've seen precisely zero activity there. Could just be my friends... but there is an uneasy balance between attracting/retaining enough people to get networking effects, and still ensuring their privacy. One thing I like about Google+ is it starts out with limited posting and limited circles and you have to work to reduce your privacy. It appears to me that Facebook has worked in exactly the opposite manner: you have to work to block and filter groups out. (I may be wrong: I used facebook briefly about three years ago.) When Google launched Buzz, they did something like opt-out rather than opt-in: Buzz included everyone on Google. That seemed to piss off a *lot* of people. I could understand why they did it: it got lots of people involved. But the bad press it got seemed like it overwhelmed any possible benefits of network effects. This time Google looks like they're trying something closer to Diaspora and hoping that because it's Google it'll be used by people other than privacy-obsessed techies (who are, or at least claim to be, actively repulsed by networking effects.)

One other interesting effect I've seen is that Buzz, which was getting more interesting over time, has really dropped off since G+ launched, because everyone who was on Buzz is now spending their effort on G+, and there are *lots* of new people on G+ as well. It'd be kind of sad if that was the main competitor that G+ killed.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (1)

Zugok (17194) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675844)

I'd love a Diaspora update, too, but in the last three months I've seen precisely zero activity there.

Diapsora development is active with daily commits https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/commits/master [github.com] .

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (5, Informative)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675662)

I've been able to select and block specific groups on my status messages, images, albums, etc. on Facebook for at least the last two years.

As have I, however it is difficult and leaves you open to holes.

Specifically with Facebook, everyone is part of the "Friends" list, and you can't remove people from it without unfriending them, at which point they can see nothing. Some set of people you may not want to see all of your posts, so you can create a list and put people in these blocked lists. However, these changes are not retroactive. So if you create a group later on, you can't deny visibility of older posts to people in that group, and then you get into a complex mess of exceptions and multiple lists with different rules.

Now with Google+ these visibility settings are not retroactive either, however until you place someone in a group that a post is visible to they cannot see any posts. They are in a limbo-like "unclassified" state, only able to see public posts. As you place them into groups, their post visibility increases. Then if you want to really get complex you can create different circles, which are much easier to target with posts than general posts with lots of visibility rules that have to be applied.

After all, some people are more acquaintances or professional contacts whereas some people are friends and yet others are family. So you can much more tightly control what people can see, and who can see it. An easy way to think of it, at least for a Slashdotter, is the difference between a firewall that defaults to ALLOW and specifies what to DENY, versus a firewall that defaults to DENY and specifies what to ALLOW. One of these ways is more secure than the other. Google+, at first glance, seems to default to the more secure way.

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675664)

i know this is still a total deal with the devil, but the first thing to win me over was that google has the simple option to delete your account, right out in the open. it also allows for you to download all your information and take it with you if a better service exists.

But, what really made me sign up is that I've already given them my email account with gmail, so there's very little more that they can dig up from me. That's somewhat depressing, but oh well...

Re:"as opposed with their entire list of contacts" (2)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675804)

I was under the impression that circles are specific to you, where Facebook's groups are not. In other words, if I have a circle called 'friends', and Joe has a circle called 'friends', Joe can be in my 'friends' circle without me being in his. Plus, groups take some effort to set up and such. I suppose that's what lists are for, but you don't get group chat and such with those. But Facebook groups always struck me as something designed for actual organizations. You'd make a group for your school club, not for the guys you tend to go to parties with. I guess that's what lists are for...I don't really know though, I just went to Facebook and couldn't figure out how to create a list...I mean I did once at one time back before they started automatically creating lists for networks...and haven't been able to figure out how to delete it since...

Not to mention that there are a ton of problems with Facebook's groups. I can't tell you how many pages I've had to duplicate from groups to fan pages. I mean, for a small org (like a school club), the term 'group' sounds more like what you want than a 'page'...so people always create them as groups, then find out a group doesn't actually work (can't do an open group, for example). So then you move to a fan page. Or you start with a fan page, find out 'groups' give a ton of features that fan pages don't (group chat, documents, for example), so you switch to that...only to discover it doesn't have the features of a page that you NEED, so you have to move back...it's just a huge mess. Not to mention that even Facebook themselves seem to be confused about the purposes of these based on how often they keep shuffling around the functions, interface, and rules for them...

If Google+ can come up with a groups/pages feature that WORKS, I will be dropping Facebook ASAP.

Questions About Privacy (1)

AnotherAnonymousUser (972204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675428)

I want to ask this of the community: We regularly see stories about Facebook and I imagine we will see many more about Google+ about how there are privacy issues that affect millions of users, above and beyond the natural scope of simply sharing your information on your profile. I understand that on a social networking site, one setting/bug will be simultaneously affecting hundreds of thousands to millions of users. As someone with some programming experience, but nothing nearly as complex as this - is there something inherently really complex about how these sites are interfacing the profiles with each other that makes them harder to design the security for, insofar as a bug like this isn't a simple fix or would pop up in so many different circumstances that it would be hard to plan for? Feedback appreciated!

Re:Questions About Privacy (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675536)

I suspect it's not so much inherently complexity as it is the desire to make money from the supposedly "private" data. In other words, the data is private until the corporation running the social network decides they can make money from it.

Re:Questions About Privacy (2)

neonleonb (723406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676174)

I know of one such case.

Suppose you're sharing something with a circle and allowing the recipients to comment on it. Those people will likely want to know who will see their comments, so they can know what's appropriate. However, them knowing that requires exposing who you shared with. So, it's a hard decision: either you have to expose some information about sharing, or you have to force people to comment without knowing who their audience is.

I think that trying to give users the ability to create information asymmetry (i.e. not telling everyone everything) fundamentally requires tradeoffs.

Control... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675432)

The problem with facebook, is that its a single site controlled by a single entity...
Google+ would just be transferring that control to Google instead of facebook...
What we need, is something open and decentralised.

Re:Control... (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675458)

What we need, is something open and decentralised.

Oh you mean that Dia...whatsitname that no one gives a shit about anymore?

Re:Control... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675540)

Instead of issued invites, the invite system is called "who can wait the longest for a usable version?"

Plus they designed it backwards. Stupid college kids.

Re:Control... (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676702)

Open, decentralized, and not designed by dorks.

Re:Control... (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676772)

I give less a shit about google's 'products' since we know they are not trustable.

really, given how horrible FB has turned out to be, why do we insist on trying to make a 'better' one? it can't work. any company involved will 'monetize' it and ruin it. therefore, any corp owned discussion forum (call it what you will) is crap by definition.

not giving google a chance here. why? anyone really think it will be 'so much different' from what we have today from other vendors and wannabees?

if you have a list of people you want to contact, email them. and when you want to stop, you stop. simple!

(not getting the lure of 'social networking' when I see nothing but problems with the implementations)

Re:Control... (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675490)

Your local espresso bar should be open and decentralized.

Re:Control... (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675558)

You mean, like, the Internet?

Re:Control... (1)

Tim12s (209786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675622)

At least with Google+ you will be able to leave with _everything_ in your profile and upload it into that wonderful "open and decentralised" platform.

On a bright note.... Due to Google's previous blunders - with Buzz and wifi packet capture - they are having their policies audited for the next 20 years.

Is Facebook being audited for their blunders?

-Tim

Re:Control... (2)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676850)

Yeah, but Mark Zuckerberg's a dick. Google is just greedy and monolithic. I'd much rather my digital soul be sold by Google to earn them profit than to have my digital soul continue to put profits in the pocket of someone of such douchebag status as Zuckerberg.

Besides, it's not like you have to use Google+, Facebook, or either. Competition just creates choice. It doesn't force change.

What's clear is that... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675468)

50% of this article summary is either conjecture or editorializing.

Bug #1 (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675472)

Surely giving all you personal information to Google is a privacy bug?

Re:Bug #1 (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675524)

I wish I had mod points. I totally agree that Google is not going to respect my privacy.

Re:Bug #1 (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675734)

Based on..what?
Historically, they have. Also, if you choose to leave you can export your info, and they delete you from there system, completely.

Of course if you share private information in a system people look at, then yeah, you loose privacy, but that's your OWN damn fault.

Re:Bug #1 (2)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675870)

I wish I had mod points. I totally agree that Google is not going to respect my privacy.

Why not? They've been pretty good about that thus far. When was the last time google shared your information with a third party?

Hell, their business model depends on keeping information about people to themselves. They don't want the advertisers to know who might be interested in their product. If they had a list, they'd advertise straight to us, and skip google as the middle-men. They want to tell the advertisers, "we know of people's habits and know people who might interested in buying from you. Pay us money and we'll display your ads to those people. In fact, let them pay you through google checkout, and we'll keep their e-mail address and credit card info from you as well, even if they become your customers.

Re:Bug #1 (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676590)

If you discount the governments of the world, you are right: Google never shares your data with anybody. They prefer to sell it, since it's their primary business model.

Re:Bug #1 (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676786)

Why not? They've been pretty good about that thus far. When was the last time google shared your information with a third party?

we can't know!

you and I don't have a sniffer on their backbone trunks. we can't know what they do once we hit enter.

no idea at all. why on earth would you assume benevolence on a mega-corp? you new here?

Re:Bug #1 (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676778)

I wish I had mod points. I totally agree that $COMPANY is not going to respect my privacy.

insanity: repeating the same thing and expecting different results.

Also.... (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675554)

From TFA:

On other news related to Google+, Google recently announced that as of July 31, it will no longer host private Google Profiles.

Well that didn't take long. They've gone from the anti-Facebook to being exactly like Facebook in the space of about a week. Paint me not surprised.

Re:Also.... (1)

21mhz (443080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675644)

Looks like you didn't have a chance to try Google+. For nearly every bit of your profile information there, you can specify how widely it can be shared. I guess they want to migrate the now redundant functionality to their new shiny service.

Re:Also.... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675732)

Looks like you didn't have a chance to try Google+. For nearly every bit of your profile information there, you can specify how widely it can be shared. I guess they want to migrate the now redundant functionality to their new shiny service.

I also see an implication that anyone with a private google profile will be issued a G+ invite before 7/31? Or maybe G+ will be wide open to the entire public before 7/31?

Re:Also.... (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675836)

Except your real name and gender. Which is public, whether you like it or not after July 31.

Re:Also.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676022)

Oh shit, better stop the presses!

Re:Also.... (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676676)

Ironic coming from an AC.

Re:Also.... (1)

21mhz (443080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676328)

I'll grant you that. I guess I never had a need to present myself as a masked nobody and call it a profile. The main reason of using social networking services for me are my real-life contacts.

Re:Also.... (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676646)

But previously you could have a profile only visible to your real-life contacts. Not everybody wants to be out there and be searchable.

Re:Also.... (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675906)

Doesn't that imply everybody who currently has a Google Profile will be moved to Google+ by the end of the month? That's... pretty quick moving, if true.

Re:Also.... (1)

scurker (1381139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675814)

From TFA:

On other news related to Google+, Google recently announced that as of July 31, it will no longer host private Google Profiles.

Well that didn't take long. They've gone from the anti-Facebook to being exactly like Facebook in the space of about a week. Paint me not surprised.

Actually only kind of. If it were Facebook, they would make your private data public, and just not tell you. However, Google has stated that any private profiles will simply be deleted if they aren't made public by that date. While it's still not the best approach, it's still better than how Facebook has tackled any situation involving private data.

Re:Also.... (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676664)

I'll grant you that. Facebook would have made the change, made your private profile public and you wouldn't have found out about it until some alert blogger decided to raise a fuss. So I guess Google clears the very low bar set by Facebook. WTG Google!

Are they on Facebook payroll or what? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675562)

Has anyone read TFA or the original page that it refers to as 'list of known privacy bugs'? There isn't a single privacy bug mentioned there.

Oh, so they're bugs when it's Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675586)

That'll make Facebook the Microsoft of social networking to Google's Apple.

you Fail It. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675616)

users. BSGD/OS project somewhere culture of abuse sux0r status, *BSD may disturb other the latest Netcraft = 36440 FreeBSD

What scares me: (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675642)

Google Circles could be the one thing which actually really works in the good way and bad way much beyond what facebook could ever do. Its scary. Combine it with your places profile, circle of friends and google searches..... Dont forget who makes android. Ich all applications on the mobile phones have integration with circles then facebook and some other may have trouble.

What Google+ Needs to Win (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675708)

For Google+ to become a viable competitor to Facebook, they have to allow what Facebook prevents, starting with adult conversations and adult material. If not, then why jump off the USS Facebook at all since you're going to have to convince your friends to follow you anyway.

Re:What Google+ Needs to Win (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676164)

You probably nailed it right on. For a service everyone is already used to, saying 'Switch to google+! We have circles, Facebook doesn't have circles. Also facebook said you're ugly, but we don't think you're ugly." Unless they're providing some incredible service more alluring to social junkies than what facebook offers, it's not going to happen unless they overcome facebook in users. It's a catch 22. To be more attractive to facebook while offering simliliar services, we need to have more users than facebook, and to have more users than facebook, we need to be more attractive than facebook.

Not Big Issues (4, Insightful)

psydeshow (154300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675718)

Reading through the list of known issues, and none of them are really show-stoppers, just bad housekeeping. Stuff like, when you block someone, their existing posts stick around. That's actually expected behavior in some systems. I might block you for being crazy today, but still want to go back and read what you posted three years ago when you were sane.

Of course the biggest privacy issue of all is missing:

When using Google+, one company has unfettered access to your searches, page views, ad clicks, social graph, email, calendar, chats, documents, photos, location, and interests.

Apple and Microsoft have (theoretically) had access to all of this via your desktop OS for years, and so has the NSA (via AT&T) so maybe it's no big deal. Still, Google, like Facebook, is an advertising company. You are not the customer -- you are the product.

Re:Not Big Issues (2)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676556)

You are not the customer -- you are the product.

Nah, we're only resources, and will become products only after Google starts to make us to be more monetizable, change us to be easier to sell. To do that, Google would have to change the way we read e-mail, search and browse the web, share videos and photos... Ok, fine, we're products.

Re:Not Big Issues (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676696)

When using Google+, one company has unfettered access to your searches, page views, ad clicks, social graph, email, calendar, chats, documents, photos, location, and interests.

Sometimes, after extended durations sitting at the computer, I start to worry about their access to this information. Then I get up and go outside, maybe ride a bike or go climbing, and I realize it's not valuable to me at all.

Would this be a feature or bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675752)

Without any kind of api access (there is still no api) these guys have pulled together a list of google+ stats (http://socialstatistics.com) that keeps track of your friends and followers. Seems innocent but it clear that google does not really monitor access to pages.

hold on their cowboys (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676294)

there seems to be a lot of "you cant trust them!" and "they did this on purpose!" posts on /. but let me remind you that this is a private beta. the whole point of a private beta is to work out the bugs using a small/reduced group of people so that when things go pear-shaped they aren't putting the general public at risk of huge data loss or in this case a loss of "privacy". they aren't being super private about this or trying to silence anyone, they even have a public page telling the world the problem with the site.

this shouldn't be a /. story and it only is because "everyone else is doing it"

Very funny. Privacy? Ha. (0)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676782)

Google has one main interest: selling information. They have specific information that people pay them to push onto others (ads) and then they have other types of marketing information they can sell. Like if one day half the people in Northern Michigan are searching for electric heaters, maybe someone at an electric heater company might be interested in that fact.

Because of the nature of the information, most of this information isn't relevant to a specific person individually but applies to either non-specific people or big groups of people. So it really has very little impact on "privacy" in an individual sense.

Of course, the exceptions to this are legion. Maybe you find it deeply offensive in having web pages displaying ads to you about erectile disfunction treatments (you know, the extreme ones) when you are trying to show your boss or a client something on a web page. All because you did some searching the day before. You can act dumb and say "I wonder why that is diplayed?" but chances are, they already know. The fact that we are now seeing the interconnections between ads and searches should concern you - it clearly means your searches are on display to the world.

And of course youy can bet that as the 2012 election gets closer companies will be paying Google big bucks to see if searches for emergency food, guns, ammo and land in Montana are being searched for more than in previous months. We are giving all of this information to Google and they are making big bucks selling it to the highest bidder and doing really, really well at it.

NEWS FLASH: UNFINISHED PRODUCT UNFINISHED! (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676830)

Duh.

Tagged Photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36676846)

In all social networking platforms, there's the tagged photos feature that doesn't have the suficient granularity to control which photos to show to all, show to a group and which to block. Just the on/off button.

Google+ Privacy Question (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676894)

I've got a question. Has anyone heard or read anything about whether or not Google tethers your search history/data with your Google+ profile once you sign up? I know Google scrapes search data based on cookies or something. I know that G-mail, Youtube, and Google Voice accounts are loosely linked (though I really don't know what that means at all). However, I haven't heard anything about whether or not G+ will use your search data to post "more relevant" ads to your profile space as you browse or anything.

I guess what I am getting at is, how likely is it that someday, somehow, people's sick porn searching habits from Google are going to end up connected to their G+ profiles in any public manner?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?