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's New Privacy Controls: Still Broken

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the hey-let's-try-this-thing dept.

Facebook 142

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

cancel ×

142 comments

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

Pointing at someone else's problems... (-1, Flamebait)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#37243366)

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

Literaphile (927079) | about 3 years ago | (#37243418)

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

But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37243458)

"Durrr, Facebook is bad."

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

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

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (2)

snowgirl (978879) | about 3 years ago | (#37243648)

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

I dispute this claim under Rule #34!

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#37244132)

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

I dispute this claim under Rule #34!

Er,

Penis Good! Google Bad! ???

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37245446)

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 years ago | (#37243752)

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

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (1)

treeves (963993) | about 3 years ago | (#37244106)

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

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 years ago | (#37244618)

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

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (1)

treeves (963993) | about 3 years ago | (#37244788)

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

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 years ago | (#37245106)

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

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (1)

treeves (963993) | about 3 years ago | (#37245206)

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

Re:But it's typical Slashdolt fare. (1)

Calos (2281322) | about 3 years ago | (#37245750)

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

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (0)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 3 years ago | (#37243464)

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | about 3 years ago | (#37243576)

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

kakyoin01 (2040114) | about 3 years ago | (#37243672)

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

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (2)

eln (21727) | about 3 years ago | (#37244074)

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37243524)

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

MichaelKristopeit501 (2018074) | about 3 years ago | (#37243560)

you obviously don't see how it's broken... a picture put on on the street can certainly be seen by the person whose name was put on it.

you're an idiot.

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37243630)

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 3 years ago | (#37243694)

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37243770)

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

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

MichaelKristopeit501 (2018074) | about 3 years ago | (#37243718)

you can't "also" do anything, as your original suggestion was ignorantly flawed. you have done nothing valid.

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

you're an idiot.

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

RKThoadan (89437) | about 3 years ago | (#37244188)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Pointing at someone else's problems... (1)

John Bresnahan (638668) | about 3 years ago | (#37243706)

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

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

Go figure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37243388)

Facebook not willing to give up the lack of privacy

Re:Go figure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37244524)

Henceforth why I left:

Hi Anonymous Coward,

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

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

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

Thanks,
The Facebook Team

Perspective (4, Interesting)

mr1911 (1942298) | about 3 years ago | (#37243436)

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

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

Re:Perspective (2)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | about 3 years ago | (#37243628)

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

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

Re:Perspective (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 years ago | (#37244026)

Mmmm... Delicious, forbidden, hidden pickles.

Re:Perspective (2)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 3 years ago | (#37243666)

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

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

Re:Perspective (1)

LocalH (28506) | about 3 years ago | (#37243930)

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

Re:Perspective (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37243958)

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

Re:Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37244272)

Tits or gtfo.

Re:Perspective (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#37246022)

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

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

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

Re:Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37244488)

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

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

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

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

Have fun as a human centipede!

Re:Perspective (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#37244858)

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

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

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

Re:Perspective (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | about 3 years ago | (#37245256)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37245474)

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

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

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

Re:Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37245454)

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

Re:Perspective (1)

quintin3265 (1552941) | about 3 years ago | (#37245562)

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

Fulla crock. (2)

Short Circuit (52384) | about 3 years ago | (#37245908)

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

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

Facebook Privacy issues (0)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | about 3 years ago | (#37243448)

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

Re:Facebook Privacy issues (1)

game kid (805301) | about 3 years ago | (#37244542)

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

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

Wow... that's (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 3 years ago | (#37243552)

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

Re:Wow... that's (1)

prostoalex (308614) | about 3 years ago | (#37243688)

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

Re:Wow... that's (1)

makomk (752139) | about 3 years ago | (#37244178)

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

Re:Wow... that's (2)

prostoalex (308614) | about 3 years ago | (#37244992)

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

Re:Wow... that's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37243704)

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

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

Re:Wow... that's (1)

ctrl-c_ctrl-x (1973992) | about 3 years ago | (#37243732)

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

Re:Wow... that's (1)

Flozzin (626330) | about 3 years ago | (#37244292)

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

Re:Wow... that's (2)

skiman1979 (725635) | about 3 years ago | (#37243746)

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

Re:Wow... that's (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 3 years ago | (#37244266)

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

Re:Wow... that's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37244360)

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

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

Re:Wow... that's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37244472)

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

Oh, so that is what happened to CmdrTaco!

Re:Wow... that's (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | about 3 years ago | (#37246314)

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

Or worse, their boss will want to hang out.

Facebook is never going to respect your privacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37243558)

Ever.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Facebook is never going to respect your privacy (1)

MrMatto (2429900) | about 3 years ago | (#37243876)

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

Re:Facebook is never going to respect your privacy (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | about 3 years ago | (#37244256)

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

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

Not broken at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37243582)

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

Best Interest (1, Redundant)

mfh (56) | about 3 years ago | (#37243614)

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

Re:Best Interest (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 3 years ago | (#37243778)

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

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

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

Facebook Still Broken! (2)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | about 3 years ago | (#37243636)

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

Re:Facebook Still Broken! (0)

Isarian (929683) | about 3 years ago | (#37243710)

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

This just in: Facebook is still lying!

Re:Facebook Still Broken! (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 3 years ago | (#37243812)

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

What???? Politicians are STILL LYING?

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

Except (1)

prostoalex (308614) | about 3 years ago | (#37243652)

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

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

Re:Except (0)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 3 years ago | (#37244112)

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

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

Re:Except (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37245280)

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

Re:Except (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37245566)

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

Hey, it's all cool, yo. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 3 years ago | (#37243656)

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

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

Eh? Eh?

Re:Hey, it's all cool, yo. (1)

LocalH (28506) | about 3 years ago | (#37243996)

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

Re:Hey, it's all cool, yo. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 3 years ago | (#37244060)

$#!+ !!!!!

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

In Soviet Russia..... (1)

d.the.duck (2100600) | about 3 years ago | (#37243782)

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

Re:In Soviet Russia..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37243864)

I think the joke should go something like this:

"Facebook privacy controls YOU!"

Re:In Soviet Russia..... (0)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 3 years ago | (#37243874)

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

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

My brain hurts.

Re:In Soviet Russia..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37243986)

In Soviet Russia Privacy Facebook's YOU!!!

Re:In Soviet Russia..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37244232)

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

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

You don't say? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#37243828)

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

Re:You don't say? (0)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 3 years ago | (#37244020)

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

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

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

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

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

Not broken (1)

formfeed (703859) | about 3 years ago | (#37244302)

Facebook's New Privacy Controls: Still Broken

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

Step backward (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#37244344)

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

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

Re:Step backward (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37244978)

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

Re:Step backward (1)

prostoalex (308614) | about 3 years ago | (#37245016)

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

Re:Step backward (2)

dmomo (256005) | about 3 years ago | (#37245076)

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

That option looks to still be there.

Re:Step backward (1)

dmomo (256005) | about 3 years ago | (#37245314)

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

Re:Step backward (1)

eyenot (102141) | about 3 years ago | (#37245268)

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

What it is (1)

ears_d (1400833) | about 3 years ago | (#37244398)

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

Two steps forward, one step back. (1)

doctormetal (62102) | about 3 years ago | (#37244660)

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

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

Turn on tag review (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 3 years ago | (#37244800)

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

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

Re:Turn on tag review (1)

johncandale (1430587) | about 3 years ago | (#37245004)

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

yep.

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

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

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

Re:Turn on tag review (1)

McDrewbie (530348) | about 3 years ago | (#37245422)

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

"Facebook" "Privacy" Controls" (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 3 years ago | (#37244924)

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

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

Possibly Related Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37245074)

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

facebook, enabling dick moves (2)

waddgodd (34934) | about 3 years ago | (#37245172)

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

The Unsationalized Truth (2)

DavidD_CA (750156) | about 3 years ago | (#37245174)

This post is completely wrong. Here's why:

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

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

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

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

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

Re:The Unsationalized Truth (1)

McDrewbie (530348) | about 3 years ago | (#37245450)

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

Re:The Unsationalized Truth (1)

DavidD_CA (750156) | about 3 years ago | (#37245778)

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

And so what?

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

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

Re:The Unsationalized Truth (1)

Christoph (17845) | about 3 years ago | (#37245722)

That makes sense.

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

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

Tried this out - Does not work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37245882)

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

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

Moot point (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 3 years ago | (#37246100)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>