3 ms·

On Privacy (or: what Buzz failed to learn from Newsfeed)

24 points by prosa 17y ago

jasonlotito 17y ago
Highlight of the article for me: "* Computers suck at intent. Inferring privacy preferences for new software, based on prior actions in old software, is a recipe for failure, and a PR nightmare. * People assume computers are great at intent. We publish things to much wider contexts than we intend, and don't notice or care until new products and features make incorrect inferences based on that." I think that best describes the problem. General privacy policies might make sense, and in truth, might be correct. Indeed, Buzz might be following the policies set, but at the same time, it makes the first mistake. Couple that with peoples assumption of the status quo and really not working to understand what they use, makes for a volatile mix. In the end, this is probably the most important thing of all: "Inferring privacy preferences for new software, based on prior actions in old software, is a recipe for failure."
- frossie 17y ago
  "Inferring privacy preferences for new software, based on prior actions in old software, is a recipe for failure." What I find so very strange, is that this isn't obvious by now. What happened here? Nobody at Google thought of this? Someone thought of this but was too scared to mention this? Someone did mention it but was overruled? I really can't decide which one of those is worst.
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    Maybe the people at Google didn't see it this way. "Inferring privacy preferences for a new feature, based on privacy choices in the existing software, is a recipe for failure." That would be how to apply this to Buzz.
calcnerd256 17y ago
The article is about the problem caused by not being explicit with our privacy intentions and expecting software to figure it out. If we keep catering to the expectation that software will solve this problem, we'll miss out on lots of opportunities, including the opportunity to develop a privacy-aware society. People are able to learn these things. They will, if you let them. Human nature is not a fixed value in this problem. It will grow around the best tools.
- prosa 17y ago
  That's a great point. One thing that I did not explore in the article is what the implications are for product marketing and adoption. By launching Buzz with preliminary connections already baked in, Google is really boosting the chances for uptake. I agree that people can learn to use the tools, but can we design go-to-market strategies that do not depend on software continuing to guess who wants to talk to who, about what?
ekiru 17y ago
The article claims that "Companies don't understand privacy." It then goes on to explain how users don't understand privacy. If you are publishing something in public on the Internet, you should expect people to be able to see it. Perhaps companies like Google and Facebook should be doing a better job of educating users that, yes, if you publish something publicly on Facebook, people will be able to see it, but I don't think it is the companies who lack the understanding of privacy.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

24 points by prosa 17y ago

Highlight of the article for me: "* Computers suck at intent. Inferring privacy preferences for new software, based on prior actions in old software, is a recipe for failure, and a PR nightmare. * People assume computers are great at intent. We publish things to much wider contexts than we intend, and don't notice or care until new products and features make incorrect inferences based on that." I think that best describes the problem. General privacy policies might make sense, and in truth, might be correct. Indeed, Buzz might be following the policies set, but at the same time, it makes the first mistake. Couple that with peoples assumption of the status quo and really not working to understand what they use, makes for a volatile mix. In the end, this is probably the most important thing of all: "Inferring privacy preferences for new software, based on prior actions in old software, is a recipe for failure."

frossie 17y ago
"Inferring privacy preferences for new software, based on prior actions in old software, is a recipe for failure." What I find so very strange, is that this isn't obvious by now. What happened here? Nobody at Google thought of this? Someone thought of this but was too scared to mention this? Someone did mention it but was overruled? I really can't decide which one of those is worst.
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  Maybe the people at Google didn't see it this way. "Inferring privacy preferences for a new feature, based on privacy choices in the existing software, is a recipe for failure." That would be how to apply this to Buzz.

calcnerd256 17y ago

The article is about the problem caused by not being explicit with our privacy intentions and expecting software to figure it out. If we keep catering to the expectation that software will solve this problem, we'll miss out on lots of opportunities, including the opportunity to develop a privacy-aware society. People are able to learn these things. They will, if you let them. Human nature is not a fixed value in this problem. It will grow around the best tools.

prosa 17y ago
That's a great point. One thing that I did not explore in the article is what the implications are for product marketing and adoption. By launching Buzz with preliminary connections already baked in, Google is really boosting the chances for uptake. I agree that people can learn to use the tools, but can we design go-to-market strategies that do not depend on software continuing to guess who wants to talk to who, about what?

ekiru 17y ago

The article claims that "Companies don't understand privacy." It then goes on to explain how users don't understand privacy. If you are publishing something in public on the Internet, you should expect people to be able to see it. Perhaps companies like Google and Facebook should be doing a better job of educating users that, yes, if you publish something publicly on Facebook, people will be able to see it, but I don't think it is the companies who lack the understanding of privacy.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]